Discussion in 'Politics' started by JimH52, Apr 5, 2011.
H102 Lecture 19: The Great Depression and the New Deal
Total lie from the first sentence.
If the economy were truly laissez-faire, those economists and political leaders would've called out Hoover for his interference.
Self-adjustments don't need "help", by definition.
Let's look at a side by side between the Depression of 1920 and the Depression of 1929:
The Depression of 1920 was worse, but after cutting taxes and spending the the American people recovered from it from such a degree that the Booming 20s began.
The Depression of 1929 was not as bad, but instead of repeating the above, Hoover and FDR did nothing but interfere with the market and try to "help" the economy. It lasted 12 years until WW2.
Now, which method helped and which prolonged? You decide. but it's really no contest.
The downturn of 1920 is by no means comparable to the Depression that started in 1929. The sever downturn of 1920 was a response to a collapse in war financing and no re-established trade. The subsuquent resumption of trade and funding for rebuilding dramatically aided the recovery (Almost Keynesian, before it existed!).
How did FDR's first two terms work out? People starved to death on the side of the road and WW1 veterans beaten to death by federal thugs and railroad cops? Is that what Obama has in mind for the next five years?
So the causes of the depressions make them uncomparable? Sounds like a cop out to not deal with the fact that the one solution worked well and the other one, the one we are trying again, really sucked.
You obviously have not talked to anyone that lived through that era. I guess your news source must be exclusively FOX. Hoover ran the country into the ground trying to rely on the wealthy to help the employed find jobs. He was hated by the middle class. FDR lifted the country out of the most severe economic crisis ever. Hoover was attempting to do exactly what the GOP and Baggers are trying to do. "Let's give our most devoted constituency, The Wealthy tax break and they will provide jobs for the unemployed." It never works!
And clearly you only listen to left wing biased news and history. I have known more than a few people who lived through the period. One thing they almost all agree on. Is your revisionist bull shit that FDR "lifted" us out of the Depression, is pure BS. They all know that the truth is the only thing that got us out of the Depression, was not government social welfare programs. It was when government was forced to spend Billions on private sector goods to fight a world war. That is when the economy boomed, and not a second before it.
So see government spending can help, but not when it is simply handing out social welfare benefits. Government spending can help if it is spent on the private sector. Because ONLY private sector growth can recover and economy. Public Sector growth acts as an inhibitor to growth, not a helper.
You mean 1933-1941? 1933 - 1937 was the fastest period of economic growth in US history, and the unemployment rate fell by a third.
Well of course! As do the causes of the recovery. a balance sheet recession is very different than a demand-side recession, which is very different from a supply-shock recession.
Well, I'm not concerned with what you think it "sounds like". Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and we fell into another recession - so do we presume from that experience that all economic events are the same and tax cuts cause recessions?
Separate names with a comma.