Deseret News | '09 optimism low, but nice surprises may be coming

Reader comments
'09 optimism low, but nice surprises may be coming

Earl | 8:06 a.m. Jan. 4, 2009

It's getting a bit wearisome to hear the claim that Hoover caused the Great Depression by tightening up the money supply, Freidman and Schwartz notwithstanding. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hoover's greatest fear was that of deflation, meaning a precipitous drop in wages and prices. He instituted a number of programs carried forward by FDR's New Deal which flooded the economy with new money. The Great Depression would have been no more than a recession if Hoover and FDR had not engaged in a government-sponsored spend-a-thon for the next 15 years. That's the real lesson of history.

Earl | 9:08 a.m. Jan. 4, 2009

I meant to comment on the unemployment figures. It's just as wearisome that so many people accept the BLS statistics as if they were fact. The methodology for calculating such numbers has become meaningless. Please refer to John Williams' Shadow Government Statistics which shows that if it were calculated as it was only 30 years ago, unemployment would be over 16% right now. The government has changed its methodology to put itself in the best possible light. So the apples-to-oranges comparisons need to stop.

Earl | 11:48 a.m. Jan. 4, 2009

Earl, if you are correct in saying that the old methodology would put the present unemployment rate at 16%, then that means that the methodology was changed because the old methodology was wrong. It is obvious that fewer than 16% of the adult population is presently does not have a job AND IS ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR ONE.

I understand that under the present system, if a jobless person is not looking for work, then that person is not counted as unemployed. And that methodology is flawed? How? It seems to me only logical that we should not count as unemployed people whom, by their lack of job-seeking effort, are saying that they do not want to be employed.

Comments continue below

Earl | 12:06 p.m. Jan. 4, 2009

You missed my point. I didn't say one method was better than another. I said they were different. If you're going to compare one period of time to another, you have to use the same methodology. If Jay wants to compare unemployment during the Great Depression to what it is today, he needs to use the same methodology for both periods. Anything wrong with that?

Anonymous | 1:10 p.m. Jan. 4, 2009

Lets make Utah the control in this experiment in economics. Utah can cut government services, cut taxes and not get any simultaneous spending. We can see if Utah recovers first.

@anonymous | 5:56 p.m. Jan. 4, 2009

The government is the answer to everything.

Dan | 10:20 p.m. Jan. 4, 2009

Woah -- was Earl arguing with himself for the first four posts or what? Even more reason to require registration on these forums.

Unfortunately, I can't figure out what Earl's point is, especially in his first post. I've never heard or read anything that makes me think that Hoover and FDR BOTH engaged in a "government spend-a-thon," and I sincerely doubt you can prove that. At the very least, it flaunts all conventional wisdom.

Earl, why don't you tell us exactly how calculations in unemployment have changed over time? Give me numbers and sources, and I'll be able to understand what you're saying. If you think unemployment today is anywhere near depression figures, you've got another think coming.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.