UCLA: FDR Prolonged the Depression

[PoliticalChic]

You are a fucking idiot who has no understanding of the history because you wish to believe failed ideas

Miss Truthie, did I make any mistakes in post #56?

I need to know, and I hang on your every word.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You are a fucking idiot who has no understanding of the history because you wish to believe failed ideas

How is a decade of double digit unemployment a success?

 

[Skull Pilot]

You are a fucking idiot who has no understanding of the history because you wish to believe failed ideas

How is a decade of double digit unemployment a success?

The dimocrat logic at work is that it would have been triple digit unemployment if the government did nothing.

It's the same logic that Obama used when he said unemployment would have been 15% but for the stimulus.

 

[Truthmatters]

How Progressives define Success: a decade a double digit unemployment.

Its more correctly labeled the fucking messes you assholes leave us to clean up when history once again prooves how fucked up your ideas really are.


What party ran us into both of these economic messes oh piss eyed one?

OO-oooo-ooo, Miss Truth- can I answer this one???

Democrats!

a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

c. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

d. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

e. Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

f. Shortly after Cisneros announced his plan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to begin buying loans under new, looser guidelines. Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, so long as they were current on rent and utilities payments. Freddie Mac also said that it would begin counting income from seasonal jobs and public assistance toward its income minimum, despite the FHA disaster of the sixties.

g. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.

h. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.”

i. Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.

j. A 1998 sales pitch by a Bear Stearns managing director advised banks to begin packaging their loans to low-income borrowers into securities that the firm could sell. Forget traditional underwriting standards when considering these loans, the director advised. For a low-income borrower, he continued in all-too-familiar terms, owning a home was “a near-sacred obligation. A family will do almost anything to meet that monthly mortgage payment.” Bunk, says Stan Liebowitz, a professor of economics at the University of Texas: “The claim that lower-income homeowners are somehow different in their devotion to their home is a purely emotional claim with no evidence to support it.”

k. Any concern was quickly dismissed. When in early 2000 the FDIC proposed increasing capital requirements for lenders making “subprime” loans—loans to people with questionable credit, that is—Democratic representative Carolyn Maloney of New York told a congressional hearing that she feared that the step would dry up CRA loans. Her fellow New York Democrat John J. LaFalce urged regulators “not to be premature” in imposing new regulations.

l. In July 1999, HUD proposed new levels for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s low-income lending; in September, Fannie Mae agreed to begin purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”—that is, with credit standards even lower than the government had been pushing for a generation.

m. In 2004 Congress pressed new affordable-housing goals on the two mortgage giants, which through 2007 purchased some $1 trillion in loans to lower- and moderate-income buyers. The buying spree helped spark a massive increase in securitization of mortgages to people with dubious credit.

n. In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson had reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting. (A Duff & Phelps study found that they were nearly three times more likely to default than conventional mortgages.) Yet the very next month, Fannie Mae said that it expected to back loans to low-income home buyers with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio—that is, loans in which the buyer puts down just 3 percent—as part of a commitment, made earlier that year to Congress, to purchase $1 trillion in affordable-housing mortgages by the end of the nineties. According to Edward Pinto, who served as the company’s chief credit officer, the program was the result of political pressure on Fannie Mae trumping lending standards.

o. In 1992, the Boston Fed produced an extraordinary 29-page document that codified the new lending wisdom. Conventional mortgage criteria, the report argued, might be “unintentionally biased” because they didn’t take into account “the economic culture of urban, lower-income and nontraditional customers.” Lenders should thus consider junking the industry’s traditional income-to-payments ratio and stop viewing an applicant’s “lack of credit history” as a “negative factor.” Further, if applicants had bad credit, banks should “consider extenuating circumstances”—even though a study by mortgage insurance companies would soon show, not surprisingly, that borrowers with no credit rating or a bad one were far more likely to default. If applicants didn’t have enough savings for a down payment, the Boston Fed urged, banks should allow loans from nonprofits or government assistance agencies to count toward one. A later study of Freddie Mac mortgages would find that a borrower who made a down payment with third-party funds was four times more likely to default, a reminder that traditional underwriting standards weren’t arbitrary but based on historical lending patterns.

p. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus launched Hogar in 2003, an initiative that pushed for easing lending standards for immigrants, including touting so-called seller-financed mortgages in which a builder provided down-payment aid to buyers via contributions to nonprofit groups. As a result, mortgage lending to Hispanics soared. And today, in districts where Hispanics make up at least 25 percent of the population, foreclosure rates are now nearly 50 percent higher than the national average, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

q. Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, have scrambled to reignite the housing market through ill-conceived tax credits and renewed federal subsidies for mortgages, including the Obama administration’s mortgage bailout plan, which recalls the New Deal’s HOLC. Behind these efforts is a fundamental misconception among politicians that housing drives the American economy and therefore demands subsidy at virtually any cost. Our praiseworthy initial efforts—to eliminate housing discrimination and provide all Americans an equal opportunity to buy a home—were eventually turned on their heads by advocates and politicians, who instead tried to ensure equality of outcomes.


Timeline shows Dems were warned:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM]YouTube - Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown[/ame]

Can I get extra credit by showing the hand of HUD Secretary Cuomo in the 'mess'???
I think he's a Democrat.

You did not write this clap trap!

 

[Truthmatters]

The Volokh Conspiracy - Obsessive Housing Disorder, Government Efforts to Increase Home Ownership.

 

[Truthmatters]

Awww shes gone now.

 

[midcan5]

"If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion." George Bernard Shaw


Why do ideological partisans still find it necessary to disparage our greatest president? (That assessment constitutes the majority of historians.) It is easy to understand why some economists do revisionist history as they are tied to a theory rather than to reality. When theory guides what you look for you usually find it. That should be obvious to anyone. FDR rescued a nation facing complete and total collapse after Coolidge and Hoover, he did so by putting America to work and creating regulatory agencies that lasted till the late eighties when Reagan began America's slide to third world status. This timeline is particularly interesting for those who want a bit of the real situation at the time. Timeline of the Great Depression


The Great Depression

The causes of the Great Depression are hotly disputed by scholars even to this day. No one knows the ultimate reason why the economy started plunging downhill in 1929. However, several things are certain:

* There was a variety of things wrong with the economy going into 1929, and they had been deteriorating throughout the decade.

* The conservative economic policies of the 1920s -- low taxes, little regulation, lack of anti-trust enforcement -- did nothing to stop the August recession and the October stock market crash.

* Hoover kept the Federal Reserve from expanding the money supply while bank panics and billions in lost deposits were contracting it. The Fed's inaction was the reason why the initial recession turned into a prolonged depression.

* The economy continually sank throughout Hoover's entire term. Under Roosevelt's New Deal, it rose five out of seven years.

* Attempts to blame Big Government for the Depression do not withstand serious scrutiny. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff had a minor impact because trade formed only 6 percent of the U.S. economy, and reducing trade gave Americans only that much more money to spend domestically. Hoover's other attempts at government intervention came mostly during his last year in office, when the Depression was already at its depth.

* The first nations to come out of the Great Depression -- Sweden, Germany, Great Britain, and then everyone else -- did so after they adopted the Keynesian solution of heavy deficit government spending.

* Keynesian economic policies have eliminated the depression from the world's economies in the six decades that have followed.

Summary



Timeline of the Great Depression
The Great Depression, to 1935
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
Stiff upper lip.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Great-Depression-New-Deal-Introductions/dp/0195326342/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1230302046&sr=1-8]Amazon.com: The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (9780195326345): Eric Rauchway: Books[/ame]
interesting for today: The Great Depression Analogy - Project Syndicate



"What is called sound economics is very often what mirrors the needs of the respectably affluent." J. K. Galbraith

 

[Truthmatters]

They just keep trying to rewrite history and keep getting caught.

It would make so much more sense to just dump the failed ideas and get some new ones.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Its more correctly labeled the fucking messes you assholes leave us to clean up when history once again prooves how fucked up your ideas really are.


What party ran us into both of these economic messes oh piss eyed one?

OO-oooo-ooo, Miss Truth- can I answer this one???

Democrats!

a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

c. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

d. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

e. Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

f. Shortly after Cisneros announced his plan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to begin buying loans under new, looser guidelines. Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, so long as they were current on rent and utilities payments. Freddie Mac also said that it would begin counting income from seasonal jobs and public assistance toward its income minimum, despite the FHA disaster of the sixties.

g. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.

h. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.”

i. Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.

j. A 1998 sales pitch by a Bear Stearns managing director advised banks to begin packaging their loans to low-income borrowers into securities that the firm could sell. Forget traditional underwriting standards when considering these loans, the director advised. For a low-income borrower, he continued in all-too-familiar terms, owning a home was “a near-sacred obligation. A family will do almost anything to meet that monthly mortgage payment.” Bunk, says Stan Liebowitz, a professor of economics at the University of Texas: “The claim that lower-income homeowners are somehow different in their devotion to their home is a purely emotional claim with no evidence to support it.”

k. Any concern was quickly dismissed. When in early 2000 the FDIC proposed increasing capital requirements for lenders making “subprime” loans—loans to people with questionable credit, that is—Democratic representative Carolyn Maloney of New York told a congressional hearing that she feared that the step would dry up CRA loans. Her fellow New York Democrat John J. LaFalce urged regulators “not to be premature” in imposing new regulations.

l. In July 1999, HUD proposed new levels for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s low-income lending; in September, Fannie Mae agreed to begin purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”—that is, with credit standards even lower than the government had been pushing for a generation.

m. In 2004 Congress pressed new affordable-housing goals on the two mortgage giants, which through 2007 purchased some $1 trillion in loans to lower- and moderate-income buyers. The buying spree helped spark a massive increase in securitization of mortgages to people with dubious credit.

n. In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson had reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting. (A Duff & Phelps study found that they were nearly three times more likely to default than conventional mortgages.) Yet the very next month, Fannie Mae said that it expected to back loans to low-income home buyers with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio—that is, loans in which the buyer puts down just 3 percent—as part of a commitment, made earlier that year to Congress, to purchase $1 trillion in affordable-housing mortgages by the end of the nineties. According to Edward Pinto, who served as the company’s chief credit officer, the program was the result of political pressure on Fannie Mae trumping lending standards.

o. In 1992, the Boston Fed produced an extraordinary 29-page document that codified the new lending wisdom. Conventional mortgage criteria, the report argued, might be “unintentionally biased” because they didn’t take into account “the economic culture of urban, lower-income and nontraditional customers.” Lenders should thus consider junking the industry’s traditional income-to-payments ratio and stop viewing an applicant’s “lack of credit history” as a “negative factor.” Further, if applicants had bad credit, banks should “consider extenuating circumstances”—even though a study by mortgage insurance companies would soon show, not surprisingly, that borrowers with no credit rating or a bad one were far more likely to default. If applicants didn’t have enough savings for a down payment, the Boston Fed urged, banks should allow loans from nonprofits or government assistance agencies to count toward one. A later study of Freddie Mac mortgages would find that a borrower who made a down payment with third-party funds was four times more likely to default, a reminder that traditional underwriting standards weren’t arbitrary but based on historical lending patterns.

p. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus launched Hogar in 2003, an initiative that pushed for easing lending standards for immigrants, including touting so-called seller-financed mortgages in which a builder provided down-payment aid to buyers via contributions to nonprofit groups. As a result, mortgage lending to Hispanics soared. And today, in districts where Hispanics make up at least 25 percent of the population, foreclosure rates are now nearly 50 percent higher than the national average, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

q. Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, have scrambled to reignite the housing market through ill-conceived tax credits and renewed federal subsidies for mortgages, including the Obama administration’s mortgage bailout plan, which recalls the New Deal’s HOLC. Behind these efforts is a fundamental misconception among politicians that housing drives the American economy and therefore demands subsidy at virtually any cost. Our praiseworthy initial efforts—to eliminate housing discrimination and provide all Americans an equal opportunity to buy a home—were eventually turned on their heads by advocates and politicians, who instead tried to ensure equality of outcomes.


Timeline shows Dems were warned:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM]YouTube - Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown[/ame]

Can I get extra credit by showing the hand of HUD Secretary Cuomo in the 'mess'???
I think he's a Democrat.

You did not write this clap trap!

STEVEN MALANGA
Obsessive Housing Disorder
City Journal,
Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009

But is there any error in it?

Do I get full credit now?

 

[Truthmatters]

Why did you try to pan it off as your own words?


Its partisan clap trap.

Some of the actual dates and legislation very likely is correct but the drawn conclusions that lace the entire thing is partisan bullshit.

This just shows how fucking USED and dishonest you cranks are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why did you try to pan it off as your own words?


Its partisan clap trap.

Some of the actual dates and legislation very likely is correct but the drawn conclusions that lace the entire thing is partisan bullshit.

This just shows how fucking USED and dishonest you cranks are.

First, while you may read it as such, I merely posted something that has been on the board many time.

I appologize if you thought otherwise.

Now, the crux: can you name any errors in the list?

If not, them the case has been made that- contrary to the propaganda of the MSM, propaganda that you choose to uncritically accept, the Democrats are responsible for what you so cleverly refer to as the 'mess.'

True?

 

[Truthmatters]

Bullshit , you said am I wrong.

You tried to pass this republican talking point filled crap as your own thoughts.

You failed to post a link and broke the rules here.

ALL of the assumptions in this piece are wrong because they all assume that this attempt to help lower income people buy homes caused this mess.

If ONLY the limits of these type of loans were written per the law then this mess would not have happened.

The problem is these types of loans were written at rates that brought them to arround 40% of the loans written at the time.

How can you blame this law when the requirements of the laws said NOTHING about 40% of loans written had to be sub prime.

Its tunnel vision thinking by idiots like you who make it possible for the powers who gained big time by creating this mess wil do it all over again.

You are either their whore or a fucking idiot.

 

[Truthmatters]

You are a fucking idiot who has no understanding of the history because you wish to believe failed ideas

Miss Truthie, did I make any mistakes in post #56?

I need to know, and I hang on your every word.

Did you make a mistake? fuck yeah.



You tried to pass off some other idiots stupidity for your own stupidity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bullshit , you said am I wrong.

You tried to pass this republican talking point filled crap as your own thoughts.

You failed to post a link and broke the rules here.

ALL of the assumptions in this piece are wrong because they all assume that this attempt to help lower income people buy homes caused this mess.

If ONLY the limits of these type of loans were written per the law then this mess would not have happened.

The problem is these types of loans were written at rates that brought them to arround 40% of the loans written at the time.

How can you blame this law when the requirements of the laws said NOTHING about 40% of loans written had to be sub prime.

Its tunnel vision thinking by idiots like you who make it possible for the powers who gained big time by creating this mess wil do it all over again.

You are either their whore or a fucking idiot.

Ah, we can only judge others by ourselves...

but thanks for thinking that I can do such precise work.

I believe that the charge is actually your way of deflecting from the post.

So, none are actually wrong?
Shocking.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bullshit , you said am I wrong.

You tried to pass this republican talking point filled crap as your own thoughts.

You failed to post a link and broke the rules here.

ALL of the assumptions in this piece are wrong because they all assume that this attempt to help lower income people buy homes caused this mess.

If ONLY the limits of these type of loans were written per the law then this mess would not have happened.

The problem is these types of loans were written at rates that brought them to arround 40% of the loans written at the time.

How can you blame this law when the requirements of the laws said NOTHING about 40% of loans written had to be sub prime.

Its tunnel vision thinking by idiots like you who make it possible for the powers who gained big time by creating this mess wil do it all over again.

You are either their whore or a fucking idiot.

I hesitated to answer this:
"ALL of the assumptions in this piece are wrong because they all assume that this attempt to help lower income people buy homes caused this mess."
...because I know that the concepts involved are over your head, but I love to write, so...

The idea is that the egalitarianism of the French Revolution, the origin of the left, fascism, and Progressivism, has been bastardized to what Robert Bork calls 'radical egalitarianism.'



1.Cultural elites and intellectuals, such as Christopher Lasch, state that “economic inequality is intrinsically undesirable…Luxury is morally repugnant, and its incompatibility with democratic ideals, moreover, has been consistently recognized in the traditions that shape our political culture…[A] moral condemnation of great wealth must inform any defense of the free market, and that moral condemnation must be backed up with effective political action.” Christopher Lasch, “The Revolt of the Elites, and the Betrayal of Democracy,” p. 22
Extension of this view changes democracy into socialism: the political ‘one person, one vote,’ becomes the economic mandate of socialism.

a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.” Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87

2. Since one cannot see any objective harm done to the less wealthy by another’s greater wealth, the explanation for the ‘economic equality imperative’ can only be envy. The resentment of luxury in another is evil, in that there is no benefit to depriving others with no gain to ourselves. What is the satisfaction of seeing the better off lessened.

a. President Clinton proposed raising taxes on the rich, even though it didn’t appear that it would increase tax revenues. A sizable portion of the public agreed, even under these circumstances. The motive can only be envy.

3. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

4. The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article. Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166


In short, and I never like being short...I do this for you, Miss Truthie, the obsessive demand for equality, with a large dollop of envy, is the major element in both the mortgage meltdown, and the Democrat Party.

And, so, you see, the "...this attempt to help lower income people.." is the core of the problem.

 

[Avorysuds]

Too bad the only way FDR got us out of the depression was WWII.

That was part of it. It wasn't all of it.

Just because the depression ended while FDR was in office does not necessarily mean that FDR ended the depression.

As the President, he gets credit for everything that happens or fails to happen in this country. FDR was in office when the depression started and was in office when the depression ended. He was so enormously popular that he was elected by the American people four times. Obviously the people who really matter, those who lived through the matter have a different opinion.

It's funny watching you guys constantly trying to bash FDR's tangible accomplishments. It's silly.

I thought Hoover did quite a bit of intervention, I thought some of what he did FDR used and did to a much stronger degree.

You are also seeming to give FRD credit for getting the US out of the depression but ignoring the fact that most of his presidency we were in 1, not to mention if ww2 didn't happen he might have never got out during his presidency.

 

[Truthmatters]

You do realise that WWII was a massive government spending that stimulated the economy right?

 

[Oddball]

Yeah...The economy was so "stimulated" that there were shortages of everything and rationing.

Foo.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion." George Bernard Shaw


Why do ideological partisans still find it necessary to disparage our greatest president? (That assessment constitutes the majority of historians.) It is easy to understand why some economists do revisionist history as they are tied to a theory rather than to reality. When theory guides what you look for you usually find it. That should be obvious to anyone. FDR rescued a nation facing complete and total collapse after Coolidge and Hoover, he did so by putting America to work and creating regulatory agencies that lasted till the late eighties when Reagan began America's slide to third world status. This timeline is particularly interesting for those who want a bit of the real situation at the time. Timeline of the Great Depression


The Great Depression

The causes of the Great Depression are hotly disputed by scholars even to this day. No one knows the ultimate reason why the economy started plunging downhill in 1929. However, several things are certain:

* There was a variety of things wrong with the economy going into 1929, and they had been deteriorating throughout the decade.

* The conservative economic policies of the 1920s -- low taxes, little regulation, lack of anti-trust enforcement -- did nothing to stop the August recession and the October stock market crash.

* Hoover kept the Federal Reserve from expanding the money supply while bank panics and billions in lost deposits were contracting it. The Fed's inaction was the reason why the initial recession turned into a prolonged depression.

* The economy continually sank throughout Hoover's entire term. Under Roosevelt's New Deal, it rose five out of seven years.

* Attempts to blame Big Government for the Depression do not withstand serious scrutiny. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff had a minor impact because trade formed only 6 percent of the U.S. economy, and reducing trade gave Americans only that much more money to spend domestically. Hoover's other attempts at government intervention came mostly during his last year in office, when the Depression was already at its depth.

* The first nations to come out of the Great Depression -- Sweden, Germany, Great Britain, and then everyone else -- did so after they adopted the Keynesian solution of heavy deficit government spending.

* Keynesian economic policies have eliminated the depression from the world's economies in the six decades that have followed.

Summary



Timeline of the Great Depression
The Great Depression, to 1935
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
Stiff upper lip.

Amazon.com: The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (9780195326345): Eric Rauchway: Books
interesting for today: The Great Depression Analogy - Project Syndicate

"What is called sound economics is very often what mirrors the needs of the respectably affluent." J. K. Galbraith

See what I mean about people having to lie so big and bold about economics in order to make Keynesian economics look reasonable?

 

[Toro]

Is this an attempt to change the subject?

Did FDR's policies extend the Depression, or not?

No.

The FDIC and taking America off the gold standard were more important than NIRA, whose core policies were in place for only a few years, and whose effect is exaggerated by the authors of the study you posted in the OP.