And I'll quote from Wikipedia:

In the United States, the Long Depression began with the Panic of 1873. The National Bureau of Economic Research dates the contraction following the panic as lasting from October 1873 to March 1879. At 65 months, it is the longest-lasting contraction identified by the NBER, eclipsing the Great Depression's 43 months of contraction.[1] [2] Following the end of the episode in 1879, the U.S. economy would remain unstable, experiencing recessions for 114 of the 253 months until January 1901.

From my budget 360:

The Long Depression lasted 65 months starting in October of 1873 and running until March of 1879. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research it is the longest period of contraction on record. There is great debate as to the reasons for the Long Depression. Much of the issues come from the fact that prices were falling because of improved productivity and also sound money in gold and silver
…
The Long Depression although it “only” officially lasted 65 months ran well into the 1890s:

long-depression

The economy was in and out of depression many times for 30 years. Yet the U.S. was expanding and wholesale giveaways of water, timber, fish, and minerals pushed major expansions and for those who were wealthy led to the Gilded Age. Another huge crash occurred in 1893.

30 Years of continuous deflation, I am looking forward to it…

We got out of previous depressions without deficit spending.

Yeah and that worked so well that the Long Depression only lasted 20 odd years…

So we can sit back and do nothing and let this depression run until the mid 2020's, but I am not sure that anyone is going to enjoy the political outcomes, on the other hand it will make for great history reading by the mid 2070's.

Also, the war, really the great sacrifices made by the people for the war effort, had more to do with that recovery than anything else.

That and tons of money spent by Uncle Sam. It was Keynesianism with a vengeance…

DQ, what the government did in the intervening years was borrow lots of money and blow things up with it. From the standpoint of building long-term prosperity, I'm struggling to imagine a worse investment.

It led to full employment and ended the depression and led to a 40 year epoch of prosperity…

Not to mention Penicillin, the Jet Aircraft, the entire Nuclear Industry, the basis of the computer industry, etc…

Not a bad investment…

Not to mention the defeat of the Axis

First, using deficit spending to help an ailing economy (Keynesian theory) has never worked. Politicians go back to it because it sounds good, not because it's effective.

National Debt 1939 – $40,439,532,411.11
National Debt 1946 – $269,422,099,173.26

That small increase in the National Debt seems to have done the job just fine…

Secondly, corporate income tax is one of those that can often cost more to collect than it actually collects. The biggest problem with getting rid of it, however, is keeping people from escaping their income tax by having the corporation provide their goods and services. It would be interesting, at least, to see the analysis.

When the housekeepers at the three Hyatt hotels in the Boston area were asked to train some new workers, they said they were told the trainees would be filling in during vacations.

On Aug. 31, staffers learned the full story: None of them would be making the beds and cleaning the showers any longer. All of them were losing their jobs. The trainees, it turns out, were employees of a Georgia company, Hospitality Staffing Solutions, who were replacing them that day.

The move to outsource the jobs of about 100 housekeeping employees at the Hyatt Regency Boston, Hyatt Regency Cambridge, and Hyatt Harborside at Logan International Airport is unusual in the hospitality industry, which counts on the housekeeping staff to help make sure hotel guests are comfortable.

“It’s unbelievable,’’ said Lucine Williams, 41, who has worked at the Hyatt Regency Boston for nearly 22 years and was making $15.32 an hour plus health, dental, and 401(k) benefits when she lost her job. “I don’t know how they can treat people like that.’’

After hearing the news at meetings last month, employees cried and screamed, said Drupattie Jungra, 55, who had worked at the Cambridge Hyatt for more than 21 years and made $15.69 an hour, plus benefits.

…

Loux said the new workers will make $8 an hour and receive no benefits, based on information from a Hospitality Staffing Solutions employee. Staffing firm president Rick Holliday sent out an e-mail stating his employees made competitive wages but didn’t answer further questions.

The dismissed workers received two weeks of pay when they were let go, plus one week of pay for every year they worked at the Hyatt up to five or 10 years, depending on the hotel. According to the housekeepers, two Hyatt employees from each hotel were asked to continue working, though it was unclear if they would be employed by the Hyatt or by the staffing firm.

Yeah, let's cut these scumbags taxes…

WBUR – On Point – Barbara Ehrenreich on Poverty Now

global competition has many CEOs subtracting employees to get to that ever present EPS

While true, you also have to understand that some of this is technology driven. We can do more with less people than ever before. And you also have to note shareholders most likely include you and your neighbor.

After 30 years, I can tell you firsthand that regulatory stasis actually provides a much better backdrop for sustainable business growth than even (cough, cough) beneficient intention change.

We can figure out our way around or through anything thrown at us, but it helps if the obstacle course remains unchanged while we're doing it.

like how Icleand and Ireland are the lowest tax rates on that chart. Wow, surely they must be doing amazingly well!

Well foreign companies that operate their whose parent countries use territorial taxation policies should certainly be doing very well there, compared with those using worldwide taxation.

Leonidas,
See my reply to PWT.

Still doesn't address worldwide taxation policy, Also you have to realize that the government closing off loppholes will increase the rate further. While I have no problem with closing those loopholes (I support it) I also recoggnize that some of the effects will not be good and need to be offset. By closing the loopholes and not offsetting you are raising the effective corporate tax rate.

Additionally that GAO report assuming its estimates are accurate is on US multinationals and not on smaller businesses. Now you might argue those smaller businesses have lower corporate tax rates but that only goes so far. Many smaller businesses cannot take full advantage of opportunities that multinationals have in lowering their effective tax burdens.

0 to 50,000 15%
50,000 to 75,000 25%
75,000 to 100,000 34%
100,000 to 335,000 39%
335,000 to 10,000,000 34%
10,000,000 to 15,000,000 35%
15,000,000 to 18,333,333 38%
18,333,333 and up 35%

Still, however, your point is certainly valid and significant. I just don't think it covers everything, especially worldwide taxation where foreign companies can go to good tax environments and set up production at very low costs compared to US companies who have to pay based on our worldwide taxation system.

Oh wait…

I would like to see a breakdown of the “effective” tax rate though. I think that cstanley is absolutely right when she says that policies aimed at “big business” normally just hurt small/medium sized businesses while the real targets get off scott free. It is entirely likely that mega giants getting taxed far under 25% are bringing down the average and that a lot of small ones are far over.

DLS,
“Sensible people want spending reductions, or at the very least, critical review of all spending, in addition to seeking better taxes than income or wealth taxes (especially such taxes that are progressive).”
I didn't say I didn't want that, but it doesn't make sense to start being fiscal conservatives in the middle of a d*mned recession. Cutting spending and government jobs now, when there is nowhere else for people to go, will only make things worse and increase human suffering.

“The theory that the federal government needs to spend more now and even borrow now is predicated on its doing these things well”
No, it's predicated on things getting worse if we do nothing, or follow your advice and cut spending. No stimulus is going to be perfect, the same as tax cuts, but I would much rather you help me convince the thieves in Washington to do a better stimulus than to do none at all.