I don't think we'd ever be able to borrow that much money. However, what really confuses me is, if it didn't work for FDR, why would it work now? Is Obama's new jobs plan a good idea?
There is roughly 3.5 trillion available for us to borrow right now.
And yes, it did work for FDR. Look up the unemployment rate going until 1937 when programs were scaled back.
What I proposed is more akin to a WWII-level mobilization, however, without the restrictions on private industry. That certainly worked with the private restrictions - sans those, I think a very impressive job could be done.
I also disagree with raising taxes while we're trapped in this thing, like when Obama said that it was the last thing you want to do.
Raising taxes on those who spend all of their money is bad, yes - you want to lower their taxes. However, raising taxes on those who don't spend there money is, at worst, economy-neutral. Far more likely they will start reinvesting their income, which in turn will improve the economy on its own.
One thing that really puzzles me is that people say that we have to have all these bureaucracies for things because big business would just put plastic in our food or whatever, but China can get away with all of this stuff. What's the point of having these things if they don't do anything?
Declaring that well-purposed regulatory agencies are bad because they have been hamstrung by lobbyist efforts is not a particularly sound argument. If you think a particular regulation or set of regulations are bad, that argument should be made on its own merits, not 'they should all just go'. They are, quite often, there for a well-thought out reason, though some things (e.g. corn subsidies) may be addressing a situation that no longer applies.
Also, I think if we just started printing money, people would stop buying our debt at all. Then our credit rating would just plummet, right? It's similar to the thing about whether we should raise the debt ceiling.
Like people stopped buying Japan's debt when they started printing money?
Or, you know, when we did?
How many record low yields has Japan had since then? Us?
Yes, there is such a thing as printing too much. You can also have too much fire and e.g. burn your house down. It doesn't necessitate freezing to death in the winter. It necessitates responsibility.
I think I remember Clinton talking about this, how the programs aren't designed to help people rise up, they just keep people trapped in them. I'm very big on the whole "teach to fish, don't just hand out fish every day" mentality, and I think everyone would agree that government doesn't actually do that.
Some government programs certainly can. It's a simple matter of how they are structured - don't allow situations like that to happen.
Oh, yes, some freeloaders will bitch. I don't get the impression you're on their side and, shock, neither are many progressives.
This might not be what you're saying, but I used to think that the rate of increase for technology would mean that eventually no one would have jobs. Everything would be automated. Obama has mentioned this to some degree with ATMs.
This is the origin of Karl Marx's quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." He believed that technology would effectively enable such a society. You work one hour a month or year and feed a million people - random, minimal labor becomes enough to sustain society.
It's not, physically, impossible. The Solar System represents a ridiculous amount of unharnessed wealth along with the energy to exploit it. The real issue is getting there without getting trapped into some dystopia where e.g. someone has control of all of the machines and turns the world into their own utopia where everyone else suffers.
However, one thing of note is that whenever things progress, something comes up to fill the void. Having more time means that we want more entertainment. Having the internet means that we buy all sorts of internet stuff. New things pop into existence as well.
I may very well be missing your point here.
I'm not sure what you are trying to address. You confused increased supply with disruption. Disruption is where something gets outmoded, and is what you described as an increase in supply when it was, for the most part, not.