- Aug 4, 2009
- 283,400
- 151,325
- 2,615
- Thread starter
- #541
Desperate times call for desperate measuresAnd you refuse to answer my questionIf it took WWII for America to get out of the depression that is evidence that FDR's New Deal did not spend nearly enough.You said he was elected in 1932. Ya, elected, but did not take office until March of '33. By rhe way, by 1941 unemployment was below 10% and by 42 and 43 below 5%. Hence, your economic whiz's are claiming below 10% is a depression, Most economist and historians have the depression ending in 1940.
Yeah it took WWII to get us out of the Depression not FDR's policies that were designed to reduce competition and raise prices
Can you show me anyone who thinks government policy to allow collusion and violations of antitrust laws so as to decrease competition and raise prices is sound policy?
The depression required war-time spending. We now know from FDR and the Great Depression that the amount of money spent must be ample. We also know from the same sources that the program to end the depression cannot be stopped as soon as their are indications the depression is leaving. At least we now have some kind of answer to depressions that we didn't have when FDR took office.
So if a president today said he was going to abandon anti-trust law and allow corporate collusion do drive competition out of business and raise prices you would think it's a sound policy
How about the time FDR took over all production in this country and told business what they could produce, who they could hire and what supplies they could get ?
Is abandoning anti trust law and allowing corporate collusion to eliminate competition in order to drive up prices sound economic policy?
Does it make sense to slaughter 6 million pigs so as to drive up the price of pork when people were going hungry?
This is exactly what FDR did yet you celebrate him while you would certainly excoriate any president for doing so today