My father in law was just in Vegas last week and he and his friend decided to take the trip to Hoover dam. We ended up talking in great length about the depression and those depression era jobs that were created.
My father in law is a conservative, but he was talking about the value that the Hoover Dam brought to that region. Wages for cosntruction workers on the dam were $4 a day. Many men had fake ID's and would actually work two shifts under two names so that they could make $8 a day instead. Remember, this was when there was pretty much nothing in the state of Nevada at all.
I think it's easy to theoretically pontificate upon the value of a free market economy. But the reality at that time was that people were willing to move into the middle of the desert and work for 16 hours daily for $8 a day. That seems like a pretty desperate picture to me.
I think Rose said it just right. Why would someone in a bad economy want to risk spending money to start a business in a culture where all employment is declining and when no one is spending money? And what sort of business would you start that could turn a profit in our current state of the economy?
By waiting for private industry to create jobs, aren't you at an even bigger disadvantage than having public works? You're hoping and waiting that some individual will decide to take a risk, start a company and that hopefully they will hire you for that job. Or that a current employer is going to do a massive hiring surge. Both scenarios are very unlikely in our current state.
Something's been bothering me. If a New-Deal-type government-funded infrastructure work program was created again, are people actually expecting laid off white collar employees (ex-WaMu, as an example) to move to the desert to build a dam? I don't see that happening. The laid off factory workers (as another example) might, but there's a whole lot of people without manual labor skills that will lose their jobs as well -- what are their options?
Something's been bothering me. If a New-Deal-type government-funded infrastructure work program was created again, are people actually expecting laid off white collar employees (ex-WaMu, as an example) to move to the desert to build a dam? I don't see that happening. The laid off factory workers (as another example) might, but there's a whole lot of people without manual labor skills that will lose their jobs as well -- what are their options?
So you're saying it's time for a massive revival of NASA?
Actually, any public works project is going to need white collar workers. If you're building new roads, you need people to order materials, audit books, make signs, plan schedules, etc. It's even more white-collar-centric when you look at more complex projects like buildings and dams.
I've heard a lot of talk about alternative energy as part of this public works program. If that's the case, expect a lot of jobs for engineers, IT, and hoards of white-collar support folks to find employment here.
I'm more worried about the relatively unskilled labor coming out of the RE, retail, tourism, and food service industries that are going to get (or already are getting) crushed during this downturn.
Something's been bothering me. If a New-Deal-type government-funded infrastructure work program was created again, are people actually expecting laid off white collar employees (ex-WaMu, as an example) to move to the desert to build a dam? I don't see that happening. The laid off factory workers (as another example) might, but there's a whole lot of people without manual labor skills that will lose their jobs as well -- what are their options?
So you're saying it's time for a massive revival of NASA?
CLASSIC!!! Funny thing about that is, that that may be happening in the next 10 years, since China is planning a trip to the moon. We beat the commies to the moon once. We can't let the neuveau commies beat us this time!
Although this is definitely a case where private industry has definitely shown to be far more cost-effective in getting people into space than the Government.
That being said, I would venture to guess that a great many of the men pouring concrete in Nevada in 1933 didn't have construction jobs in 1928. When you're freshly unemployed, your standards are pretty high as far as what you'll take work wise. After 5 years of no job and no income, I'd move to the desert and pour concrete.
White collar workers right out of the box won't want to get their hands dirty. However, they may not have a choice after not working for several months.
The single biggest reason for lack of private investment during the 1930s was uncertainty over FDR's intrusive governance in the economy. This is the elephant in the room.
The single biggest reason for lack of private investment during the 1930s was uncertainty over FDR's intrusive governance in the economy. This is the elephant in the room.
You don't think that the lack of money and wealth had anything to do with it? Or perhaps the lack of people actually able to buy goods? Or 25% unemployment rate? Or a stock market that lost 90% of it's value?
Remember, we had 4 years of depression economics before FDR was president. No one was ready to open up their mattress for investment until people started working again and the economy started to pick up.
Something's been bothering me. If a New-Deal-type government-funded infrastructure work program was created again, are people actually expecting laid off white collar employees (ex-WaMu, as an example) to move to the desert to build a dam? I don't see that happening. The laid off factory workers (as another example) might, but there's a whole lot of people without manual labor skills that will lose their jobs as well -- what are their options?
I don't think the entire program is intended to be infrastructure. However, blue collar workers have been hard hit for the last 10, 15 years and there are a lot of people with minimal "job skills" who would probably be willing to do some manual labor in lieu of being unemployed. Construction projects have become more focused on machinery and less on sheer manpower, though. Also, most of the needed infrastructure is close to major city centers now, so there probably wouldn't need to be a mass exodus of people. There would be some trickle up to equipment suppliers (Paccar, Caterpillar, Mack, etc) and a huge trickle down to raw material providers. There would also be a natural increase in money velocity as the people who were building highways and bridges spent more money on various things.
The oft talked about "green energy" stimulus would primarily impact blue collar workers (building, assembling, and installing wind turbines) and a fairly small number of researchers and scientists (improving battery and capacitor design, for example). Of course there are a lot of business opportunities attached to this type of incentive, which opens the window for entrepreneurs.
There are, of course, millions of people who went to college and have worthless pieces of paper but some expectation of high paying desk jobs. This includes the hundreds of thousands of hacks who have MBA degrees but couldn't run a lemonade stand. I don't know where this stimulus could possibly come from. For good or bad, a lot of people will need to rethink what they consider acceptable employment. And we as a nation may need to accept that everyone going to college isn't all it cracked up to be.
The single biggest reason for lack of private investment during the 1930s was uncertainty over FDR's intrusive governance in the economy. This is the elephant in the room.
Like in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 (FDR took office in 1933)? Maybe, the single biggest reason for lack of private investment was that everyone who had a shirt had just lost all their other shirts three years earlier.
I think it's easy to theoretically pontificate upon the value of a free market economy. But the reality at that time was that people were willing to move into the middle of the desert and work for 16 hours daily for $8 a day. That seems like a pretty desperate picture to me.
Yeah, but that was 80 years ago. $8 a day back then was like $93 a day now. Doesn't sound as bad when I put it that way does it?
The single biggest reason for lack of private investment during the 1930s was uncertainty over FDR's intrusive governance in the economy. This is the elephant in the room. -- FreedomLover
Then let's look at other recoveries. The recovery after the dot-com bust was arguably the weakest jobs recovery since the great depression. Tax cuts were flying out the door like crazy, so private industry was given every possible incentive to create new jobs.
Are you saying that private industry was uncertain how intrusive the Republican Congress, Republican President, and conservative Supreme Court would be? Possibly they were concerned about the effects of terrorism (would the government outsource half or all of the military)?
At the same time, the private sector went straight to cash, until the consumer came back to buy homes. The private sector follows the consumer. The only way to mitigate the current economic collapse is to prop up the consumer, and doing so with debt isn't working anymore.
This is what FDR faced in 1932. It is absurd to say that private industry would have led us out of the crisis when they are a proven follower of the consumer. That's like expecting the wolves (instead of say, the shepherd) to lead the sheep. The wolves follow the sheep.
I think it's easy to theoretically pontificate upon the value of a free market economy. But the reality at that time was that people were willing to move into the middle of the desert and work for 16 hours daily for $8 a day. That seems like a pretty desperate picture to me.
Yeah, but that was 80 years ago. $8 a day back then was like $93 a day now. Doesn't sound as bad when I put it that way does it?
In a 16 hour work day? That's about 5.80 an hour. I guess that's not so bad ;-)
As far as Obama work projects, if we do end up doing alot of electrical infrastructure changes, then yes I think you will see alot of jobs moving from metropolitian to rural areas. I mean, they won't be making wind farms in King County. They're going to be all along the Gorge. Solar farms won't be in Orange County either.
I don't think it'll be a mass exodus, but I think it's going to help rural areas of the country more than cities.
The single biggest reason for lack of private investment during the 1930s was uncertainty over FDR's intrusive governance in the economy. This is the elephant in the room.
Like in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 (FDR took office in 1933)? Maybe, the single biggest reason for lack of private investment was that everyone who had a shirt had just lost all their other shirts three years earlier.
I forgot to mention Hoover's interventionism. Before the "New Deal" there was Hoover's mini New Deal that already set up FDR's more expansive policies. Don't try to say that Hoover was a free marketeer. He imposed wage controls!
The single biggest reason for lack of private investment during the 1930s was uncertainty over FDR's intrusive governance in the economy. This is the elephant in the room. -- FreedomLover
Then let's look at other recoveries. The recovery after the dot-com bust was arguably the weakest jobs recovery since the great depression. Tax cuts were flying out the door like crazy, so private industry was given every possible incentive to create new jobs.
Are you saying that private industry was uncertain how intrusive the Republican Congress, Republican President, and conservative Supreme Court would be? Possibly they were concerned about the effects of terrorism (would the government outsource half or all of the military)?
At the same time, the private sector went straight to cash, until the consumer came back to buy homes. The private sector follows the consumer. The only way to mitigate the current economic collapse is to prop up the consumer, and doing so with debt isn't working anymore.
This is what FDR faced in 1932. It is absurd to say that private industry would have led us out of the crisis when they are a proven follower of the consumer. That's like expecting the wolves (instead of say, the shepherd) to lead the sheep. The wolves follow the sheep.
There is no comparison between 2002 and 1932. By 1932 Hoover had instituted wage controls, had pushed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs and other interventions. Even Obama is not considering a trade war or wage controls!
I think it's easy to theoretically pontificate upon the value of a free market economy. But the reality at that time was that people were willing to move into the middle of the desert and work for 16 hours daily for $8 a day. That seems like a pretty desperate picture to me.
Yeah, but that was 80 years ago. $8 a day back then was like $93 a day now. Doesn't sound as bad when I put it that way does it?
In a 16 hour work day? That's about 5.80 an hour. I guess that's not so bad ;-)
As far as Obama work projects, if we do end up doing alot of electrical infrastructure changes, then yes I think you will see alot of jobs moving from metropolitian to rural areas. I mean, they won't be making wind farms in King County. They're going to be all along the Gorge. Solar farms won't be in Orange County either.
I don't think it'll be a mass exodus, but I think it's going to help rural areas of the country more than cities.
Clever politics if you think about it. Give public works to the red areas(GOP) and they'll vote for you next time. Meanwhile he can shaft the blue cities because they have nowhere to go! Niccolo Machiavelli would be smiling.
Clever politics if you think about it. Give public works to the red areas(GOP) and they'll vote for you next time. Meanwhile he can shaft the blue cities because they have nowhere to go! Niccolo Machiavelli would be smiling.
Sorry, but that's just a stupid analysis. Rural areas are increasingly irrelevant in politics. The cities are blue, and the exurbs are red (in general). If you were a democrat who really wanted to eviscerate the rural red vote, you would just stay the course - which is, let the number of rural jobs continue to plummet and force those people to move into the cities where they will be exposed to a set of more liberal minded people.
There's very strong evidence, by the way, that societal pressures have more influence on your core believes than what your friends think or what your family believes.
More likely, Obama recognizes that the rural areas are places that are underutilized and that these are areas where new work can make a dent. There's nothing he or anyone else in the world can do to salvage the US retail industry. Besides, hadn't you heard that Obama is a Muslim who hates America? Just cause he sends a few jobs those ways doesn't mean it will change the minds of those voters.
So today with Obama making his little press appearance at the hardware factory that makes bolts for wind turbines I had a thought. We're not the only country in the world who is interested in not buying oil from the Saudis anymore.
I think there's a good chance that if we're able as a country to develop alot of great technologies, we may actually start manufacturing things and having other countries buy what we make again. So besides the upgrade in total infrastructure and less dependence on foreign energy, we actually start manufacturing and exporting goods again.
That, by the way, is what this country did in the Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt ran in 1932 as a balance-the-budget fiscal conservative who believed that cutting government spending was the best way to restore faith in the financial system. Confronted with the reality of a banking system in shutdown, farmers being forced off their land even as people starved and an economy where 25% of the work force, officially, was unemployed, Roosevelt became willing to try just about anything.
I don't think we can afford to be any less creative now.
So today with Obama making his little press appearance at the hardware factory that makes bolts for wind turbines I had a thought. We're not the only country in the world who is interested in not buying oil from the Saudis anymore.
I think there's a good chance that if we're able as a country to develop alot of great technologies, we may actually start manufacturing things and having other countries buy what we make again. So besides the upgrade in total infrastructure and less dependence on foreign energy, we actually start manufacturing and exporting goods again.
Amazing how you made such a connection without any evidence. It's just an article of faith with the left - build enough new bridges and out manufacturing base will rise again!
So today with Obama making his little press appearance at the hardware factory that makes bolts for wind turbines I had a thought. We're not the only country in the world who is interested in not buying oil from the Saudis anymore.
I think there's a good chance that if we're able as a country to develop alot of great technologies, we may actually start manufacturing things and having other countries buy what we make again. So besides the upgrade in total infrastructure and less dependence on foreign energy, we actually start manufacturing and exporting goods again.
Amazing how you made such a connection without any evidence. It's just an article of faith with the left - build enough new bridges and out manufacturing base will rise again!
So...your insight is that nobody in the world is interested in buying useful technology...?!?
FL has a somewhat valid point. Even if we revolutionize wind turbines, solar cells, tidal power collection (whatever that's called), or some other clean technology, eventually the actual manufacturing will be outsourced to a cheaper nation.
The important part is that we have the intellectual property sourced domestically.
So today with Obama making his little press appearance at the hardware factory that makes bolts for wind turbines I had a thought. We're not the only country in the world who is interested in not buying oil from the Saudis anymore.
I think there's a good chance that if we're able as a country to develop alot of great technologies, we may actually start manufacturing things and having other countries buy what we make again. So besides the upgrade in total infrastructure and less dependence on foreign energy, we actually start manufacturing and exporting goods again.
Amazing how you made such a connection without any evidence. It's just an article of faith with the left - build enough new bridges and out manufacturing base will rise again!
How is it not logical that if you invent and create a product for your own country that other countries that don't have the infrastructure or wherewithal to invent such things wouldn't want to also buy that superior technology?
So today with Obama making his little press appearance at the hardware factory that makes bolts for wind turbines I had a thought. We're not the only country in the world who is interested in not buying oil from the Saudis anymore.
I think there's a good chance that if we're able as a country to develop alot of great technologies, we may actually start manufacturing things and having other countries buy what we make again. So besides the upgrade in total infrastructure and less dependence on foreign energy, we actually start manufacturing and exporting goods again.
Amazing how you made such a connection without any evidence. It's just an article of faith with the left - build enough new bridges and out manufacturing base will rise again!
How is it not logical that if you invent and create a product for your own country that other countries that don't have the infrastructure or wherewithal to invent such things wouldn't want to also buy that superior technology?
Unless you think that America can operate an economy completely cutoff from world trade, then it doesn't matter what is made where as long as the people are prosperous.
FL has a somewhat valid point. Even if we revolutionize wind turbines, solar cells, tidal power collection (whatever that's called), or some other clean technology, eventually the actual manufacturing will be outsourced to a cheaper nation.
The important part is that we have the intellectual property sourced domestically.
Excellent point, we should enhance our greatest resource - our minds. America has the greatest engineering/science colleges in the world.
Unless you think that America can operate an economy completely cutoff from world trade, then it doesn't matter what is made where as long as the people are prosperous.
I think that's the very reason that it does matter. So long as we require oil, copper, or phosphorus from other parts of the world, it is very important that our trade be relatively balanced. That balanced trade (or even trade surplus) is precisely what makes the people prosperous...something we, as a society, seem to have forgotten shortly after Jimmy How-Do-You-Become-President-With-A-Kids-Name Carter left office.
The main lesson from the New Deal is that wholesale government intervention can - and does - deliver the most unintended of consequences. This was true in the 1930s, when artificially high wages and prices kept us depressed for more than a decade; it was true in the 1970s when price controls were used to combat inflation but only produced shortages. It is true today, when poorly designed regulation produced a banking system that took on too much risk.
Here is an interesting article giving a different perspective on the New Deal. I don't agree with the comments about how the new "social safety net" aspects of the New Deal were good, but I do think the comments about how many of the policies actually delayed an economic recovery have merit.
The main lesson from the New Deal is that wholesale government intervention can - and does - deliver the most unintended of consequences. This was true in the 1930s, when artificially high wages and prices kept us depressed for more than a decade; it was true in the 1970s when price controls were used to combat inflation but only produced shortages. It is true today, when poorly designed regulation produced a banking system that took on too much risk.
Here is an interesting article giving a different perspective on the New Deal. I don't agree with the comments about how the new "social safety net" aspects of the New Deal were good, but I do think the comments about how many of the policies actually delayed an economic recovery have merit.
It's a flawed argument from the start. Government takes actions that are good and bad, and after the fact we're trying to make an argument for or against such intervention based on anecdotal evidence. That's hardly conclusive of anything. Is it appropriate for the federal government (as opposed to states or even individuals) to print money? Well, we've tried the other options and government intervention seems to work a little bit better, so that's the accepted practice. How about maintenance of a military? Constitutionally, we have both a militia style army and a standing army (well, navy anyways), and I don't think anyone can state empirically that either is better.
What this all comes down to for me, is that if your argument is that government simply can't do X well because it's government, and that by that same token private interests will do X better, then you have no argument. You are arguing solely on little more than a religious belief in the markets. It would be similarly stupid to argue that only the federal (or state) government can fulfill a given need. At times like these, the proper thing to do is examine each problem, decide who can address it, and then get out of their way.
All Keynesian theory does is expand socialism. Reagan was the first to roll back Keynes and put in some Hayekian theory into practice. It brought us 25 years of unparalleled prosperity.
Comments
My father in law is a conservative, but he was talking about the value that the Hoover Dam brought to that region. Wages for cosntruction workers on the dam were $4 a day. Many men had fake ID's and would actually work two shifts under two names so that they could make $8 a day instead. Remember, this was when there was pretty much nothing in the state of Nevada at all.
I think it's easy to theoretically pontificate upon the value of a free market economy. But the reality at that time was that people were willing to move into the middle of the desert and work for 16 hours daily for $8 a day. That seems like a pretty desperate picture to me.
I think Rose said it just right. Why would someone in a bad economy want to risk spending money to start a business in a culture where all employment is declining and when no one is spending money? And what sort of business would you start that could turn a profit in our current state of the economy?
By waiting for private industry to create jobs, aren't you at an even bigger disadvantage than having public works? You're hoping and waiting that some individual will decide to take a risk, start a company and that hopefully they will hire you for that job. Or that a current employer is going to do a massive hiring surge. Both scenarios are very unlikely in our current state.
I've heard a lot of talk about alternative energy as part of this public works program. If that's the case, expect a lot of jobs for engineers, IT, and hoards of white-collar support folks to find employment here.
I'm more worried about the relatively unskilled labor coming out of the RE, retail, tourism, and food service industries that are going to get (or already are getting) crushed during this downturn.
CLASSIC!!! Funny thing about that is, that that may be happening in the next 10 years, since China is planning a trip to the moon. We beat the commies to the moon once. We can't let the neuveau commies beat us this time!
Although this is definitely a case where private industry has definitely shown to be far more cost-effective in getting people into space than the Government.
That being said, I would venture to guess that a great many of the men pouring concrete in Nevada in 1933 didn't have construction jobs in 1928. When you're freshly unemployed, your standards are pretty high as far as what you'll take work wise. After 5 years of no job and no income, I'd move to the desert and pour concrete.
White collar workers right out of the box won't want to get their hands dirty. However, they may not have a choice after not working for several months.
Heh. I'm saying that I don't expect to see ex-WaMu bankers swinging pickaxes to build levees around I-5 for $10/hr. That's all.
You don't think that the lack of money and wealth had anything to do with it? Or perhaps the lack of people actually able to buy goods? Or 25% unemployment rate? Or a stock market that lost 90% of it's value?
Remember, we had 4 years of depression economics before FDR was president. No one was ready to open up their mattress for investment until people started working again and the economy started to pick up.
I don't think the entire program is intended to be infrastructure. However, blue collar workers have been hard hit for the last 10, 15 years and there are a lot of people with minimal "job skills" who would probably be willing to do some manual labor in lieu of being unemployed. Construction projects have become more focused on machinery and less on sheer manpower, though. Also, most of the needed infrastructure is close to major city centers now, so there probably wouldn't need to be a mass exodus of people. There would be some trickle up to equipment suppliers (Paccar, Caterpillar, Mack, etc) and a huge trickle down to raw material providers. There would also be a natural increase in money velocity as the people who were building highways and bridges spent more money on various things.
The oft talked about "green energy" stimulus would primarily impact blue collar workers (building, assembling, and installing wind turbines) and a fairly small number of researchers and scientists (improving battery and capacitor design, for example). Of course there are a lot of business opportunities attached to this type of incentive, which opens the window for entrepreneurs.
There are, of course, millions of people who went to college and have worthless pieces of paper but some expectation of high paying desk jobs. This includes the hundreds of thousands of hacks who have MBA degrees but couldn't run a lemonade stand. I don't know where this stimulus could possibly come from. For good or bad, a lot of people will need to rethink what they consider acceptable employment. And we as a nation may need to accept that everyone going to college isn't all it cracked up to be.
Like in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 (FDR took office in 1933)? Maybe, the single biggest reason for lack of private investment was that everyone who had a shirt had just lost all their other shirts three years earlier.
Yeah, but that was 80 years ago. $8 a day back then was like $93 a day now. Doesn't sound as bad when I put it that way does it?
Then let's look at other recoveries. The recovery after the dot-com bust was arguably the weakest jobs recovery since the great depression. Tax cuts were flying out the door like crazy, so private industry was given every possible incentive to create new jobs.
Are you saying that private industry was uncertain how intrusive the Republican Congress, Republican President, and conservative Supreme Court would be? Possibly they were concerned about the effects of terrorism (would the government outsource half or all of the military)?
At the same time, the private sector went straight to cash, until the consumer came back to buy homes. The private sector follows the consumer. The only way to mitigate the current economic collapse is to prop up the consumer, and doing so with debt isn't working anymore.
This is what FDR faced in 1932. It is absurd to say that private industry would have led us out of the crisis when they are a proven follower of the consumer. That's like expecting the wolves (instead of say, the shepherd) to lead the sheep. The wolves follow the sheep.
In a 16 hour work day? That's about 5.80 an hour. I guess that's not so bad ;-)
As far as Obama work projects, if we do end up doing alot of electrical infrastructure changes, then yes I think you will see alot of jobs moving from metropolitian to rural areas. I mean, they won't be making wind farms in King County. They're going to be all along the Gorge. Solar farms won't be in Orange County either.
I don't think it'll be a mass exodus, but I think it's going to help rural areas of the country more than cities.
I forgot to mention Hoover's interventionism. Before the "New Deal" there was Hoover's mini New Deal that already set up FDR's more expansive policies. Don't try to say that Hoover was a free marketeer. He imposed wage controls!
There is no comparison between 2002 and 1932. By 1932 Hoover had instituted wage controls, had pushed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs and other interventions. Even Obama is not considering a trade war or wage controls!
Clever politics if you think about it. Give public works to the red areas(GOP) and they'll vote for you next time. Meanwhile he can shaft the blue cities because they have nowhere to go! Niccolo Machiavelli would be smiling.
Sorry, but that's just a stupid analysis. Rural areas are increasingly irrelevant in politics. The cities are blue, and the exurbs are red (in general). If you were a democrat who really wanted to eviscerate the rural red vote, you would just stay the course - which is, let the number of rural jobs continue to plummet and force those people to move into the cities where they will be exposed to a set of more liberal minded people.
There's very strong evidence, by the way, that societal pressures have more influence on your core believes than what your friends think or what your family believes.
More likely, Obama recognizes that the rural areas are places that are underutilized and that these are areas where new work can make a dent. There's nothing he or anyone else in the world can do to salvage the US retail industry. Besides, hadn't you heard that Obama is a Muslim who hates America? Just cause he sends a few jobs those ways doesn't mean it will change the minds of those voters.
I think there's a good chance that if we're able as a country to develop alot of great technologies, we may actually start manufacturing things and having other countries buy what we make again. So besides the upgrade in total infrastructure and less dependence on foreign energy, we actually start manufacturing and exporting goods again.
Amazing how you made such a connection without any evidence. It's just an article of faith with the left - build enough new bridges and out manufacturing base will rise again!
So...your insight is that nobody in the world is interested in buying useful technology...?!?
The important part is that we have the intellectual property sourced domestically.
How is it not logical that if you invent and create a product for your own country that other countries that don't have the infrastructure or wherewithal to invent such things wouldn't want to also buy that superior technology?
Unless you think that America can operate an economy completely cutoff from world trade, then it doesn't matter what is made where as long as the people are prosperous.
Excellent point, we should enhance our greatest resource - our minds. America has the greatest engineering/science colleges in the world.
I think that's the very reason that it does matter. So long as we require oil, copper, or phosphorus from other parts of the world, it is very important that our trade be relatively balanced. That balanced trade (or even trade surplus) is precisely what makes the people prosperous...something we, as a society, seem to have forgotten shortly after Jimmy How-Do-You-Become-President-With-A-Kids-Name Carter left office.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25008973-7583,00.html?ref=patrick.net
Here is an interesting article giving a different perspective on the New Deal. I don't agree with the comments about how the new "social safety net" aspects of the New Deal were good, but I do think the comments about how many of the policies actually delayed an economic recovery have merit.
It's a flawed argument from the start. Government takes actions that are good and bad, and after the fact we're trying to make an argument for or against such intervention based on anecdotal evidence. That's hardly conclusive of anything. Is it appropriate for the federal government (as opposed to states or even individuals) to print money? Well, we've tried the other options and government intervention seems to work a little bit better, so that's the accepted practice. How about maintenance of a military? Constitutionally, we have both a militia style army and a standing army (well, navy anyways), and I don't think anyone can state empirically that either is better.
What this all comes down to for me, is that if your argument is that government simply can't do X well because it's government, and that by that same token private interests will do X better, then you have no argument. You are arguing solely on little more than a religious belief in the markets. It would be similarly stupid to argue that only the federal (or state) government can fulfill a given need. At times like these, the proper thing to do is examine each problem, decide who can address it, and then get out of their way.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... t=1&f=1001
All Keynesian theory does is expand socialism. Reagan was the first to roll back Keynes and put in some Hayekian theory into practice. It brought us 25 years of unparalleled prosperity.