[Lula-biz] suicide as a career move

[john riehl aka j.r.]

ack Denman wrote:
 > There was no war in 1946 or in 1957 or 1982 and no double dip war as 
seen on
 > this chart of 100 years of the Dow Jones. I have a database of every 
single
 > trading days activity including high, low open and close and can give 
you the
 > data on every day. There is no double dip or recession or wars in 
1946,1947
 > and 1982.


Since when has the definition of a recession included the performance of 
the dow jones?  answer: NEVER.   go read a basic macro econ book.  there 
are a few thousand out there.  Second, any one who has read a basic 
macro book knows that the dow jones isnt completely representative of 
the economic health.  how many companies does it represent?  (rhetorical 
question).   heck you can figure this out just from watching cnbc.

and yes, there were recessions at all those times.   I was directly 
impacted by a couple of them.   Yes, I remember president carter getting 
paul volker to reign in the money supply.  I remember president reagan 
insisting that we "stay the course" economically, despite the immediate 
hardship it presented.

Further, if you define the djia as the predictor of economic health, we 
had a recession and war in 1987.  It must have been a big one, because 
the djia dropped like a rock in october.

Add that to the the war that started in 1923, when the djia dropped 
because of a scandal.

>> specific date issues:
>> 1. if the crash signals the end of the bad economy, ww2 should have
>> begun in 1929.  strangely, germany in the mid 1930s seemed relatively
>> quite prosperous, compared to anytime since ww1.  the german economy had
>> collapsed in 1923.
> 
> You are confused. I said wars come at the end of the bad cycle, not the 
> beginning. The beginning od the bad business cycle came in 1929 but the end 
> came near 1941-1945 not 1929.

you missed it completely.   The bad business cycle that began for us in 
1929. for germany, it started in with ww1, peaked in 1923.  germany had 
been recovering in the 30s.

you cycles dont line up.

>> 2.  the vietnam war didnt start in 1974.
> 
> Again, you are confused. I stated that wars come at the end of the bad cycle 
> not the beginning. The war actually ended in late 1973 and the bottom of the 

if they "come at the end of a bad business cycle", where did the bad 
business cycle start for us?

the vietnam war started in the 1950s.  remember dien bien phu?   We 
didnt get involved in vietnam until the french left, but the war was 
alive and kicking.

the 1950s and 1960s economically were prosperous in the us.  heck, in 
many places, these were periods of growth and prosperity among the ruins 
of ww2.

> I say that it's an illusion that wars do spurn production and employment. 

can't argue with logic like that.  It is an illusion that people got 
paid to go to work.  it is an illusion that companies got paid to 
produce goods...... It is an illusion that there were recessions those 
years....

> know because I have read them. They have researched the idea far more than 
> you have.

you dont know the basic definition of a recession, which you kept 
misspelling as ressession.  you equate economic health with the djia. 
Oh, I have read those articles, I understand the gist of their argument, 
and after years of business school, I understand how much you dont 
understand what they are saying.

Much of what they are saying comes out of some economic theories made 
popular in the late 1970s/early 1980s.  (art laffer, laffer curve, 
reaganomics,  etc).  About the time that the double-dip recession that 
you say didnt occur happened.  One of those is that production via 
government intervention is not as beneficial as production via domestic 
demand.  (basic tenet of "reaganomics")

Second, if you were paying attention, I had already stated that when you 
switch from a war based economy to a non-war one, you frequently have a 
recession, like we did in 1946.   Wartime production is an "artificial" 
demand.  when the war is over, it gets turned off like a switch. 
unfortunately, you dont just show up for work the next day to produce 
toasters.  there is no production for a while.  (hint:  the definition 
of recession has to do with gross domestic production).

>> If you want to get full tech employment, release the mother of all
>........
> 
> I don't regard this last statement as beneficial, relevant, educational 
> valuable, or informative. It is cynicism, rancor or rage. 

I thought it was pretty dang funny.  In fact, most of the people I have 
told that to have laughed quite a bit.   considering the source, your 
statement is hysterically funny.   what were you advocating as a 
solution?  mandating that everything be produced in the us?

jr




_______________________________________________
Lula-biz mailing list
Lula-biz at lula.org
http://www.lula.org/mailman/listinfo/lula-biz