Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
When did the GD end due to FDR's policies? "Fixed," not floated.
1933. it started anew in 1938 and was quickly ended again. The problem is the perception in the general public of a decade long event. It wasn't. It was four distinct events: a crash, a recovery, a recession and another recovery.
You described Government intervention and at the very end cited the 37/38 crash... It crashed because the privet sector was relatively small because near all the growth under FDR was Government jobs or in the some of the privet sectors unique situation of being falsely affected by Government, IE agriculture, meaning without Governement money/rules these markets that grew would crash as well.
No, that's not what I said. The market contracted in 37/8 because money was removed from the system. That removal hurt the private sector AND the public sector and caused a brief retraction. It wasn't 1930 all over again. It was over and growth returned within a couple quarters instead of four years. The New Deal didn't claim to end the business cycle.
You'd have to explain what you mean by "taking care of itself."So, when was the US and the economy able to take care of itself? Obviously not by 1937/38... So when?
The argument that I have heard isn't that government spending kept the unemployment rate higher. The argument that I have heard is that NIRA kept the unemployment rate higher. Its pretty silly to argue that government borrowing and spending in an economy with massive excess capacity increases unemployment.
I know there were ups and down in the Great depression.
Here again all you did was show that without massive money being dumped into the economy by Government we would have a "crash." "Crash" only means that things got worse in the economy, not another depression starting, sorry.
The privet sector in the US was very much mixed with Government, just like we see today with bailouts... It's not really Government but it's not really privet.
The argument that I have heard isn't that government spending kept the unemployment rate higher. The argument that I have heard is that NIRA kept the unemployment rate higher. Its pretty silly to argue that government borrowing and spending in an economy with massive excess capacity increases unemployment.
Actually it is not only not silly, it is spot on. Gov't competing with private enterprise for employees means an artificially high price on such labor.
I know there were ups and down in the Great depression.
Here again all you did was show that without massive money being dumped into the economy by Government we would have a "crash." "Crash" only means that things got worse in the economy, not another depression starting, sorry.
It wasn't just money being dumped - it was money being removed from the economy. Shrinking the money supply will almost always cause a recession. As Milton and others demonstrated, failure to pour money into the economy in the early parts of 1930 and 31 is part of what made the fall so steep.
The privet sector in the US was very much mixed with Government, just like we see today with bailouts... It's not really Government but it's not really privet.
Well then with that you'd have to say there's no such thing as private sector growth, period. iT's all just government.
I don't believe that to be the case. The private sector can- and has - and did in the 1930's - experience autonomous economic growth.
The argument that I have heard isn't that government spending kept the unemployment rate higher. The argument that I have heard is that NIRA kept the unemployment rate higher. Its pretty silly to argue that government borrowing and spending in an economy with massive excess capacity increases unemployment.
Actually it is not only not silly, it is spot on. Gov't competing with private enterprise for employees means an artificially high price on such labor.
What the fuck? The government wasn't competing with the private sector for labor in 1933, Rabbi.
The argument that I have heard isn't that government spending kept the unemployment rate higher. The argument that I have heard is that NIRA kept the unemployment rate higher. Its pretty silly to argue that government borrowing and spending in an economy with massive excess capacity increases unemployment.
Actually it is not only not silly, it is spot on. Gov't competing with private enterprise for employees means an artificially high price on such labor.
The Obama Administration has gone even further: they compete by paying people not to work through infinite unemployment benefits.
There is a demand for products just not demand enough for people to pay what the Government wants you to pay for products.The argument that I have heard isn't that government spending kept the unemployment rate higher. The argument that I have heard is that NIRA kept the unemployment rate higher. Its pretty silly to argue that government borrowing and spending in an economy with massive excess capacity increases unemployment.
Actually it is not only not silly, it is spot on. Gov't competing with private enterprise for employees means an artificially high price on such labor.
The Obama Administration has gone even further: they compete by paying people not to work through infinite unemployment benefits.
It doesn't compete with private industry when there is no demand.
Actually it is not only not silly, it is spot on. Gov't competing with private enterprise for employees means an artificially high price on such labor.
What the fuck? The government wasn't competing with the private sector for labor in 1933, Rabbi.
FDR had policies that made companies pay wages that they simply could not, so yes, they were able to steal employees from companies that did not integrate themselves with Government, if they even had that opportunity.
What the fuck? The government wasn't competing with the private sector for labor in 1933, Rabbi.
FDR had policies that made companies pay wages that they simply could not, so yes, they were able to steal employees from companies that did not integrate themselves with Government, if they even had that opportunity.
No he didn't. We're talking about New Deal 1 here, the spark of the fastest period of peacetime growth in history.
There is a demand for products just not demand enough for people to pay what the Government wants you to pay for products.Actually it is not only not silly, it is spot on. Gov't competing with private enterprise for employees means an artificially high price on such labor.
The Obama Administration has gone even further: they compete by paying people not to work through infinite unemployment benefits.
It doesn't compete with private industry when there is no demand.
You can't have the Government running around bailing companies out so that prices don't fall (like they should haha) and then say there is no demand... There is no demand because prices are to high, it's not a hard concept to grasp really.
If prices are artificially high then people don't buy... If people don't buy then companies have no need for more employees... That is why a recession is not necessarily a bad thing, we find real worth in the products and services out there, unless of course you have a KING running around telling people what they have to pay for goods and services, like FDR and now Obama...
What would have happened if the banks went under Im sure its very complex but I have a feeling investors would have had to make a choice Make loans affordable on a monthly basis or lose ALL of their investment Gee, I wonder what option they would have taken It aint no thang, Obama took YOUR money and gave it to the Banks HA HA HA HA .
There is a demand for products just not demand enough for people to pay what the Government wants you to pay for products.It doesn't compete with private industry when there is no demand.
You can't have the Government running around bailing companies out so that prices don't fall (like they should haha) and then say there is no demand... There is no demand because prices are to high, it's not a hard concept to grasp really.
If prices are artificially high then people don't buy... If people don't buy then companies have no need for more employees... That is why a recession is not necessarily a bad thing, we find real worth in the products and services out there, unless of course you have a KING running around telling people what they have to pay for goods and services, like FDR and now Obama...
What would have happened if the banks went under Im sure its very complex but I have a feeling investors would have had to make a choice Make loans affordable on a monthly basis or lose ALL of their investment Gee, I wonder what option they would have taken It aint no thang, Obama took YOUR money and gave it to the Banks HA HA HA HA .
I hate hate hate hate hate bailing banks out. And Americans should be furious at what happened. But during the Depression, bank runs occurred whether or not banks were sound. In a properly functioning market, sound banks should survive and the weakest banks should fail. However, during the Depression, it was found that banks that were strong failed anyways because people panicked and pulled their money out regardless of an institution's financial soundness. Sometimes markets fail and catastrophe can follow. That is why the government bailed out the financial system. Many parts of the market literally stopped working.
Government spending does not create unemployment. You can make the argument that government spending that leads to default creates unemployment, that's true. But when there is massive excess capacity and monetary velocity has collapsed, it will not create unemployment.
FDR had policies that made companies pay wages that they simply could not, so yes, they were able to steal employees from companies that did not integrate themselves with Government, if they even had that opportunity.
No he didn't. We're talking about New Deal 1 here, the spark of the fastest period of peacetime growth in history.
Haha regardless of what time we are talking about what does it matter? It's like taking a crap when you're IN a pool, how can you miss? The void was so big that dumping money into the economy of course you will see "growth." FDR’s growth did slow down and means NOTHING because it's mainly Government growth, unsustainable growth.
Again, why not just hand every American 10,000 a week every week for a year… You will see growth that would make FDR look like a child, up until either people realized it was unsustainable and going to crash or until it just crashed.
Please, listen to your logic, it’s freaking me the fuck out…
Now please answer the question. When did FDR’s policies end the Great depression? Point at it, give us a link. I don’t care when the GD ended, I wana see proof that FDR’s policies did end it. This is of course where you and everyone else that supports FDR comes up short.
In 1920 we had a depression but it was fixed, of course I can prove it and show how and when it was done and STILL people talk shit, why don't you guys need any proof?
As time went by, despite his initial misgivings, FDR would champion the merits of deposit insurance, calling it one of "the new instruments of social justice" that America had forged "to overcome the threats to economic democracy in our land."
Even some of the strongest free market conservatives came to support it. The economist Milton Friedman once called the FDIC the "single most important structural change" in the economy since the Civil War.
Perhaps the most fascinating discovery arising from researchers' broader international focus is that the extent to which a country adhered to the gold standard and the severity of its depression were closely linked. In particular, the longer that a country remained committed to gold, the deeper its depression and the later its recovery (Choudhri and Kochin, 1980; Eichengreen and Sachs, 1985).
The willingness or ability of countries to remain on the gold standard despite the adverse developments of the 1930s varied quite a bit. A few countries did not join the gold standard system at all; these included Spain (which was embroiled in domestic political upheaval, eventually leading to civil war) and China (which used a silver monetary standard rather than a gold standard). A number of countries adopted the gold standard in the 1920s but left or were forced off gold relatively early, typically in 1931. Countries in this category included Great Britain, Japan, and several Scandinavian countries. Some countries, such as Italy and the United States, remained on the gold standard into 1932 or 1933. And a few diehards, notably the so-called gold bloc, led by France and including Poland, Belgium, and Switzerland, remained on gold into 1935 or 1936.
If declines in the money supply induced by adherence to the gold standard were a principal reason for economic depression, then countries leaving gold earlier should have been able to avoid the worst of the Depression and begin an earlier process of recovery. The evidence strongly supports this implication. For example, Great Britain and Scandinavia, which left the gold standard in 1931, recovered much earlier than France and Belgium, which stubbornly remained on gold. As Friedman and Schwartz noted in their book, countries such as China--which used a silver standard rather than a gold standard--avoided the Depression almost entirely. The finding that the time at which a country left the gold standard is the key determinant of the severity of its depression and the timing of its recovery has been shown to hold for literally dozens of countries, including developing countries. This intriguing result not only provides additional evidence for the importance of monetary factors in the Depression, it also explains why the timing of recovery from the Depression differed across countries.
Haha regardless of what time we are talking about what does it matter?
The void was so big that dumping money into the economy of course you will see "growth." FDRs growth did slow down and means NOTHING because it's mainly Government growth, unsustainable growth.
Again, why not just hand every American 10,000 a week every week for a year You will see growth that would make FDR look like a child, up until either people realized it was unsustainable and going to crash or until it just crashed.
Please, listen to your logic, its freaking me the fuck out
Now please answer the question. When did FDRs policies end the Great depression? Point at it, give us a link.
I already explained that...numerous times. Your inability to understand, or your willful ignorance, is not my concern. His policies brought stability to the financial system, creating an avenue for savings to be converted into investment. Some of them also increased effective demand during a period of 50% cap utilization.I dont care when the GD ended, I wana see proof that FDRs policies did end it. This is of course where you and everyone else that supports FDR comes up short.
In 1920 we had the end of a World War and we financed the rebuilding of Europe.In 1920 we had a depression but it was fixed, of course I can prove it and show how and when it was done and STILL people talk shit, why don't you guys need any proof?
I keep seeing you toss in “record peace time growth” as well, like in any way that matters hahaha. What if Harding and Coolidge got un-employment under 1%, shrunk Government to match taxes and let people have more freedom to make or break themselves, Oh, they did…
