We do not spend enough

Sep 2018
6,579
1,086
cleveland ohio
#1
https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/FDR-prolonged-the-Great-Depression-Really-3255706.php

FDR prolonged the Great Depression? Really? The thing you have to remember is when reality doesnt go their way conservatives flat out lie about shit, they do, they just make shit up out of thin air, the holocaust never occured, FDR fucked up the economy, all made up shit.. you know the moon landing, climate change, evolution if there is a fact you f dont like ignore it and make shit up.. if you tell a lie make it a big one and just keep repeating it, shit worked for that nazis dude goebbels

If you're like me, you sometimes find yourself speechless when confronted with abject insanity.

If you're like me, for instance, you were dumbfounded when "Forrest Gump" beat out "Pulp Fiction" for best picture; when HBO's "Sopranos" received more accolades than "The Wire"; and when George W. Bush insisted Iraqi airplanes were about to drop WMDs on American cities.








So if you're like me, you probably understand why I was momentarily tongue-tied last week after running face-first into conservatives' newest (and most ridiculous) talking point - the one designed to stop Congress from passing an economic stimulus package.

During a Christmas Eve appearance on Fox News, I pointed out that most mainstream economists believe the government must boost the economy with deficit spending. That's when conservative pundit Monica Crowley said we should instead limit such spending because President Franklin Roosevelt's "massive government intervention actually prolonged the Great Depression." Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett eagerly concurred, saying "historians pretty much agree on that."



Of course, I had recently heard snippets of this silly argument - conservative pundits are repeating it everywhere these days. But I had never heard it articulated in such preposterous terms, so my initial reaction was paralysis - the mouth-agape, deer-in-the-headlights kind. Only after collecting myself did I say that such assertions about the New Deal were absurd. But then I was laughed at - as if it was hilarious to say that the New Deal did anything but exacerbate the Depression.


Afterward, suffering pangs of self-doubt, I wondered whether I and most of the country are the crazy ones. Sure, the vast majority of Americans think the New Deal worked well. But are conservatives right? Did the New Deal's "massive government intervention prolong the Great Depression"?


Ummm ... no.

Upon deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt's term - four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending, and the economy went back down again."


To be sure, you can credibly argue that the New Deal had its share of problems. But overall, the numbers prove it helped - rather than hurt - the macroeconomy. "Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms (while) the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent," writes UC Davis historian Eric Rauchway.

What about the New Deal's most "massive government intervention" - its financial regulations? Did they prolong the Great Depression in ways the official data didn't detect?

Nope.


According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, "Only with the New Deal's rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression." In fact, even famed conservative economist Milton Friedman admitted that the New Deal's Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War."

OK - if the verifiable evidence proves the New Deal did not prolong the Depression, what about historians - do they "pretty much agree" on the opposite?

Again, no.

As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."

But that's the critical point I somehow forgot last week - the truism we must all remember in 2009: As conservatives try to obstruct a new New Deal, they're not making any arguments that are remotely serious.
https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/FDR-prolonged-the-Great-Depression-Really-3255706.php
 
Nov 2012
39,889
11,565
Lebanon, TN
#2
If FDR had let the economic cycle continue without the new deal the depression would have ended in 1934 not due to the war industry that began in 1942

FDR did not end the Depression in the US Germany, Italy and Japan did.
 
Sep 2018
6,579
1,086
cleveland ohio
#3
If FDR had let the economic cycle continue without the new deal the depression would have ended in 1934 not due to the war industry that began in 1942

FDR did not end the Depression in the US Germany, Italy and Japan did.
you have to prove that, see they tried to let the cycle re adjust as they did in 1923, they did that for 4 years and nothing happened its a common myth you are repeating, easily refuted, you need to take some economics classes... people that say such things have an agenda they are not objective
At first, economists and leaders thought this was a mild bump, perhaps merely a correction of the market, or in any case, no worse than the recession the nation suffered after World War I.
Numbers soon proved the optimists incorrect. The depression steadily worsened. By spring of 1933, when FDR took the oath of office, unemployment had risen from 8 to 15 million (roughly 1/3 of the non-farmer workforce) and the gross national product had decreased from $103.8 billion to $55.7 billion. Forty percent of the farms in Mississippi were on the auction block on FDR's inauguration day. Although the depression was world wide, no other country except Germany reached so high a percentage of unemployed. The poor were hit the hardest. By 1932, Harlem had an unemployment rate of 50 percent and property owned or managed by blacks fell from 30 percent to 5 percent in 1935. Farmers in the Midwest were doubly hit by economic downturns and the Dust Bowl. Schools, with budgets shrinking, shortened both the school day and the school year.
The breadth and depth of the crisis made it the Great Depression.
No one knew how best to respond to the crisis. President Hoover believed the dole would do more harm than good and that local governments and private charities should provide relief to the unemployed and homeless. By 1931, some states began to offer aid to local communities. FDR, then governor of New York, worked with Harry Hopkins and Frances Perkins to begin a direct work relief program. This helped only a very few. By 1932, only 1/4 of unemployed families received any relief. In 1932, only 1.5 percent of all government funds were spent on relief and averaged about $1.67 per citizen. Cities, which had to bear the brunt of the relief efforts, teetered on the edge of bankruptcy. By 1932, Cook County (Chicago) was firing firemen, police, and teachers (who had not been paid in 8 months). Breadlines and Hoovervilles (homeless encampments) appeared across the nation.
Those hurt the most were more stunned than angry. Many sank into despair and shame after they could not find jobs. The suicide rates increased from 14 to 17 per 100,000. Protest that did occur was local, not national: "farm holidays," neighbors of foreclosed farmers refusing to bid on farms at auction, neighbors moving evicted tenants' furniture back in, and local hunger marches.
Resistance to protest often turned violent. In 1932, four members of the Dearborn hunger march were shot and killed when 1,000 soldiers accompanied by tanks and machine guns evicted veterans living in the Bonus Army camp in Washington, D.C.
FDR, after assuming the presidency, promoted a wide variety of federally funded programs aimed at restoring the American economy, helping relieve the suffering of the unemployed, and reforming the system so that such a severe crisis could never happen again. However, while the New Deal did help restore the GNP to its 1929 level and did introduce basic banking and welfare reforms, FDR refused to run up the deficits that ending the depression required. Only when the federal government imposed rationing, recruited 6 million defense workers (including women and African Americans), drafted 6 million soldiers, and ran massive deficits to fight World War II did the Great Depression finally end.

Sources:
Leuchtenburg, William E. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932-1940. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1963, passim.
McElvaine, Robert S. The Great Depression: America, 1929-1941. New York: Times Books, 1993, passim.

For more information on the Great Depression, visit the following web sites:
 
Sep 2018
6,579
1,086
cleveland ohio
#5
If FDR had let the economic cycle continue without the new deal the depression would have ended in 1934 not due to the war industry that began in 1942

FDR did not end the Depression in the US Germany, Italy and Japan did.
if you under stood econmics youd under stand why war is the purest form of keynsian stimulous and proves k john maynard keynes to be right
 
Nov 2012
10,319
8,473
nirvana
#6
If FDR had let the economic cycle continue without the new deal the depression would have ended in 1934 not due to the war industry that began in 1942

FDR did not end the Depression in the US Germany, Italy and Japan did.
If Republican economic policy didn’t exist there wouldn’t be a depression economic cycle.

The depression continued longer than necsarry because he let his advisors talk him into relaxing policy he had put into place.