Depression Survivor: "It was much worse."

FDR did some good things and some bad things.

However, his policies in general contributed to the end of the Depression, though others such as NIRA hurt the country.

Deficit financing, which was running less than 1% of the economy until 1932 (less than any time under W), popped up to ~5% as the government stepped in to replace demand that had collapsed. Other policies, such as the FDIC, were instrumental in stabilizing the banking system. Ben Bernanke has described the FDIC as the single most important factor contributing to the end of the Great Depression. Revaluing the dollar down relative to the price of gold was also important as countries went off the gold standard which caused the Fed to raise interest rates in 1931 from 1.5% to 3.5%, a remarkably counter-cyclical policy.

But don't we already have a long thread on this topic already?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-help-us-get-out-of-the-great-depression.html
 
Hoover did way to little, FDR went big and it worked.

unless you were ...... Henry Morganthau....as political chic posted:

No less an authority than FDR's Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"

This quote came after the 1937-38 contraction, which was caused by FDR raising taxes and cutting spending to balance the budget. So it wouldn't be a surprise that Morganthau would think this in 1939 after seeing the economy plunge back down again.

The world's foremost academic scholar on the Great Depression is Ben Bernanke. Bernanke - a Republican - has concludded that the New Deal was an instrumental factor in bringing the economy out of the Depression, though not the only one.
 
Hoover did way to little, FDR went big and it worked.

unless you were ...... Henry Morganthau....as political chic posted:

No less an authority than FDR's Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"

This quote came after the 1937-38 contraction, which was caused by FDR raising taxes and cutting spending to balance the budget. So it wouldn't be a surprise that Morganthau would think this in 1939 after seeing the economy plunge back down again.

The world's foremost academic scholar on the Great Depression is Ben Bernanke. Bernanke - a Republican - has concludded that the New Deal was an instrumental factor in bringing the economy out of the Depression, though not the only one.

yes the discussion about how long it would have taken to end the depression by just spending and no war is always and interesting one......

bernanke knows his depression pity he does not have greenspans manipulative streak.....
 
Hoover did way to little, FDR went big and it worked.

Hoover did little, and that's what caused the depression.

FDR went big, and that's what made it last 12 years longer.

WWII didn't even end it. It was ended in 1945 by the huuuuge decrease in spending and tax cuts.

Spending does not help an economy to recover. Period. It didn't work for us in the depression, or during the 1970s, or for Japan in the lost decade, etcetc. It simply doesn't ever work, because it's a redistribution of wealth from those that produce to those that consume. The people that produce get laid off -- see the unemployment headlines, if you don't believe this, and those that consume (government) get fatter checks.

Agree except for the end to the Depression. IMO, the war effort ended it.
 
Year Unemployment rate
1923-29............. 3.3

1930............. 3.3

1931............. 15.9

1932 ............. 23.6

1933 ............ 24.9

1934 ........... 21.7

1935 .......... 20.1

1936 .......... 17.0

1937........... 14.3

1938........... 19.0

1939 .......... 17.2

1940.......... 14.6

1941 ........... 9.9

1942 ........... 4.7

Your numbers show WWII ended the Depression. See ya. Try again when you have another stupid argument to make.
 
Year Unemployment rate
1923-29............. 3.3

1930............. 3.3

1931............. 15.9

1932 ............. 23.6

1933 ............ 24.9

1934 ........... 21.7

1935 .......... 20.1

1936 .......... 17.0

1937........... 14.3

1938........... 19.0

1939 .......... 17.2

1940.......... 14.6

1941 ........... 9.9

1942 ........... 4.7

Your numbers show WWII ended the Depression. See ya. Try again when you have another stupid argument to make.


When did the effect of WWII start? what year?


Things got better every year until FDR had to cut back the stimulus and tried to balence the budget. He had to reup the stimulus the next year.
 
Government spending on war - including the lend lease program - was definitely a factor in bringing the economy out of the Depression.

But that's not a surprise. War spending often brought about an economic boom. It did so in WWI, as profits from business were at the highest level in 1917 as they were for business. In fact, it was once conventional wisdom that government spending during a war was always beneficial to the economy.

Paradoxically, profits from business was very low in WWII, as the government taxed away much of the profits and put price caps on all sorts of goods.

The dynamics of war spending are the same as they are in building infrastructure in many ways but are different in others. Economists assume that people behave in certain ways, particularly that people will maximize their income (technically, their "utility"). However, during times of war and duress, people will act differently. The government took over the economy during WWII, which was more akin to socialism than at any time in American history. And it worked. However, that is because Americans changed their motivation which drove their production, i.e. they worked for the war effort. But when the war was won, the motivations went back to normal.

The issue of motivation is important. Doctrinaire free marketers believe that income is the only, or at least the overwhelming driver of economic behavior. Doctrinaire socialists seem to ignore this motivation, instead assuming how people should behave.
 
Government spending on war - including the lend lease program - was definitely a factor in bringing the economy out of the Depression.

But that's not a surprise. War spending often brought about an economic boom. It did so in WWI, as profits from business were at the highest level in 1917 as they were for business. In fact, it was once conventional wisdom that government spending during a war was always beneficial to the economy.

Paradoxically, profits from business was very low in WWII, as the government taxed away much of the profits and put price caps on all sorts of goods.

The dynamics of war spending are the same as they are in building infrastructure in many ways but are different in others. Economists assume that people behave in certain ways, particularly that people will maximize their income (technically, their "utility"). However, during times of war and duress, people will act differently. The government took over the economy during WWII, which was more akin to socialism than at any time in American history. And it worked. However, that is because Americans changed their motivation which drove their production, i.e. they worked for the war effort. But when the war was won, the motivations went back to normal.

The issue of motivation is important. Doctrinaire free marketers believe that income is the only, or at least the overwhelming driver of economic behavior. Doctrinaire socialists seem to ignore this motivation, instead assuming how people should behave.
and those high taxes are partially why the depression lasted as long as it did
 
and those high taxes are partially why the depression lasted as long as it did

The government should not have raised taxes nor cut spending nor raised the reserve ratio. They should have let the deficit rise, which it did anyways, rising inexorably beyond anything the New Deal brought on because of WWII.
 
It worked none the less right?

I so wish people would rspect history but they always try to rewrite it for their onw gain.
 

Forum List

Back
Top