[late]

Because we started from almost nothing, we needed everything to build a war machine. The need to increase production wound up increasing efficiency and often lowering prices.

Didn't happen overnite, but Ford built a factory, and got the speed up to a bomber a day. For that era, that was incredible.

After the war, the lessons learned remained. The machine tools were still there, you could use them to produce anything.

All you needed was demand.

When the soldiers came home, Congress passed bills to help them get started. Cheap small home loans, cheap college education, etc.

The result was those small homes got filled with babies, soldiers came back horny. They then bought larger cars, washing machines, they filled their homes with babies and appliances.

That's what we call demand, in spades.

It could have been a bust. If we had listened to conservatives, it would have been.

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Am...e ... 111&sr=1-1

[Rugoz]

Total factor productivity doesn't even exist.

Take a look at this plot:



Economy just returned to its potential. Easy to say in retrospective.

[late]

Total factor productivity doesn't even exist.


Economy just returned to its potential. Easy to say in retrospective.

Actually, TFP was invented to deal with the limits of GDP.

"In economics, total-factor productivity (TFP), also called multi-factor productivity, is usually measured as the ratio of aggregate output (e.g., GDP) to aggregate inputs.[1] Under some simplifying assumptions about the production technology, growth in TFP becomes the portion of growth in output not explained by growth in traditionally measured inputs of labour and capital used in production."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_factor_productivity

Before the war, the country was in a Great Depression, and a lot of people worried that we would slide back into it. It's more likely the economy would have recovered, but taken a decade or two to do it.

[Rugoz]

Actually, TFP was invented to deal with the limits of GDP.

Eh..what? It's simply the Solow residual. Unless you know exactly what that means, I suggest you use a different measure of productivity.

[late]

Eh..what? It's simply the Solow residual. Unless you know exactly what that means, I suggest you use a different measure of productivity.

You're basically saying there wasn't a postwar boom, which is amusing.

[Rancid]

The Marshall plan forced Europe to buy American goods. Additionally, Europe had no capacity for manufacturing because it was all destroyed. This created the boom in America. However, once Europe recovered, and corporations decided to start placing profits over people, the manufacturing base was exported to Mexico, Asia, and elsewhere.

[wat0n]

You're basically saying there wasn't a postwar boom, which is amusing.

You obviously don't understand what TFP is.

Also, there was actually a postwar bust at first, because of demobilization, and then came the boom.

It was also not just a demand thing. Many technologies developed during the depression and the war and that had been mostly been an academic pursuit or used by the military started being incorporated into the productive processes of the civilian economy.

[late]

Also, there was actually a postwar bust at first, because of demobilization, and then came the boom.

It was also not just a demand thing.

Many technologies developed during the depression and the war and that had been mostly been an academic pursuit or used by the military started being incorporated into the productive processes of the civilian economy.

Of course..

Of course, but you do need demand for the whole shebang to work.

Of course, that was one of the things I was saying.

[Steve_American]

You obviously don't understand what TFP is.

Also, there was actually a postwar bust at first, because of demobilization, and then came the boom.

It was also not just a demand thing. Many technologies developed during the depression and the war and that had been mostly been an academic pursuit or used by the military started being incorporated into the productive processes of the civilian economy.

Of course the GDP declined after the Gov. stopped buying weapons after the war.

Then it took some time for the factories to go back to making civilian type things or people to buy.

People have money saved from earnings in the war years that they had to save because either they were in the military or there was rationing. So, as soon as stuff to buy came out of the factories, people bought it. Also, the Gov. deficit spent for the Marshall Plan, which gave Europeans money to buy things that only the US was making.

.

[pugsville]

Because Europe was in Ruins. The British had very dour 1950s. No boom for them, rationing.

US was able to dominate industrially and export to many countries beacuse they had massive industrial base ready to build stuff at the time the rest of the world's industrial base was in ruins. The US also got to dictate the frmaing of the ecnomic/trade agreements of the post war.

[BlutoSays]

OP, no idea what you mean by "It could have been a bust. If we had listened to conservatives, it would have been."

The country was conservative in the 40's, 50's, 60's.

[Potemkin]

OP, no idea what you mean by "It could have been a bust. If we had listened to conservatives, it would have been."

The country was conservative in the 40's, 50's, 60's.

Not if you look at the tax codes, it wasn’t. Lol.

You need to make a distinction here between social conservatism and economic conservatism. The New Deal was pretty radical, and WWII made government intervention in the economy fashionable. It took a while for the economic conservatives to turn that around.

[BlutoSays]

Not if you look at the tax codes, it wasn’t. Lol.

You need to make a distinction here between social conservatism and economic conservatism. The New Deal was pretty radical, and WWII made government intervention in the economy fashionable. It took a while for the economic conservatives to turn that around.

Rethink that, because it's not what you believe. Hardly anyone paid that 91% top tax rate. That should not be the only thing you judge our past on, anyway. JFK would be a conservative today. So would many of the democrats in congress back then. We had budgets broken into 13 parts and each was addressed in a methodic way, unlike today where there's one omnibus bills that cram everything into them, wheeling and dealing in the backroom and no one reads the legislation....and the government is 30-40% of GDP. That's insanity. Things go out of hand on purpose.

The average US person believed in hard work, getting ahead by producing and there was a sense of shame if you asked for help. I'm not saying help wasn't needed in some cases, but today, it's celebrated. The country was built around a nuclear family and taking care of your family. The military was not considered evil like it is today - they had recruiting in schools. Standards of learning did not dive like they have recently. If you didn't make the grade, you stayed back, regardless of your feels. Sure there was alcoholism, family abuse, sexism and the smorgasbord of BS, but it was dealt with if it got out in the open. Today, you get fifty spins at the wheel before anything happens.

Yup, the new deal was radical, but the numbers and percentages were smaller and things were run more locally. DC was a sleepy town. You couldn't have the level of national graft we have today. Private entrepreneurship was celebrated, not demonized, like it is today. Plus, we had the cold war to deal with, so you knew who the enemy was. I guess today, you do know who the enemy is also - about half of the DNC that have lost their f'n minds. See, the Jussie Smolletts, the squad, the Hollywood class and ANTIFA would have a coming to Jesus back then and the shit-stirring they peddle (self hatred, whining for constant handouts, a sense of entitlement and plotting for power by lawfare) wasn't tolerated on the scale it is today, even by the bluest New Englanders and unionized brotherhoods. No work, no eat. YES, there was corruption, but today it's on steroids.

[Steve_American]

Potemkin wrote:
Not if you look at the tax codes, it wasn’t. Lol.

You need to make a distinction here between social conservatism and economic conservatism. The New Deal was pretty radical, and WWII made government intervention in the economy fashionable. It took a while for the economic conservatives to turn that around.

Rethink that, because it's not what you believe. Hardly anyone paid that 91% top tax rate. That should not be the only thing you judge our past on, anyway. JFK would be a conservative today. So would many of the democrats in congress back then. We had budgets broken into 13 parts and each was addressed in a methodic way, unlike today where there's one omnibus bills that cram everything into them, wheeling and dealing in the backroom and no one reads the legislation....and the government is 30-40% of GDP. That's insanity. Things go out of hand on purpose.

The average US person believed in hard work, getting ahead by producing and there was a sense of shame if you asked for help. I'm not saying help wasn't needed in some cases, but today, it's celebrated. The country was built around a nuclear family and taking care of your family. The military was not considered evil like it is today - they had recruiting in schools. Standards of learning did not dive like they have recently. If you didn't make the grade, you stayed back, regardless of your feels. Sure there was alcoholism, family abuse, sexism and the smorgasbord of BS, but it was dealt with if it got out in the open. Today, you get fifty spins at the wheel before anything happens.

Yup, the new deal was radical, but the numbers and percentages were smaller and things were run more locally. DC was a sleepy town. You couldn't have the level of national graft we have today. Private entrepreneurship was celebrated, not demonized, like it is today. Plus, we had the cold war to deal with, so you knew who the enemy was. I guess today, you do know who the enemy is also - about half of the DNC that have lost their f'n minds. See, the Jussie Smolletts, the squad, the Hollywood class and ANTIFA would have a coming to Jesus back then and the shit-stirring they peddle (self hatred, whining for constant handouts, a sense of entitlement and plotting for power by lawfare) wasn't tolerated on the scale it is today, even by the bluest New Englanders and unionized brotherhoods. No work, no eat. YES, there was corruption, but today it's on steroids.

Bluto, you need to brush up on US economic history. Also on, when the US Gov. budget "got out of hand".

The national debt in 1981 as Reagan took office was about $1 T, While it is hard to get agreement from the experts on what should be counted as part of the debt after '81, it was by some experts about $4 T when Reagan left office. It increased under Bust I to about $6 T. Clinton had a sort of a surplus for 3 years, so it went up less under Clinton. Then it shot up some more under Bush II. As he left office we had the GFC/2008, so Obama had to spend a lot. Then Trump cut taxes on the rich again and increased sending again to add about as much to the debt in 4 years as Obama did in 8 years. [Remember, experts fudge the debt figures by sometimes not including items like debt held by the Fed (functionally part of the Gov. because 97% of its revenues is paid to the US Gov) and also the Soc. Sec, Admin (another part of the Gov.), and others IIRC.

So, yes, the budget deficit and national debt did "get out of hand", but is was your Party that did it. We Dems can't raise taxes after the Repuds cut them so the debt keeps growing quite fast.

Because you, Bluto, have a habit of making bold false statements, I think I can safely dispute your claim that "hardly anyone paid that 91% top tax rate." I bet you just made that up, and really have no idea how many rich Americans paid 91% on part of their income. Besides which, corps paid workers more because saving money by not paying workers more just saw the money flow to the Gov. in taxes. So, the corps didn't fight as hard to earn it in the 1st place.

But, I'm really talking to the Lurkers, because I know that you are totally incapable of learning new info.

.