UCLA: FDR Prolonged the Depression

[Avorysuds]

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

I feel sorry for the puppy in your avitar...

 

[geauxtohell]

And now, the winner in the category of unintentional humor:
"Just that a singular policy extended it by seven years. "

Isn't that akin to '...other than that, Ms. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Seriously, you're not too dense to get that, ....are you?

I can always tell when you are running out of gas.

Like I said, even if we can be 100% certain that the predictions of these economists are correct, it's still irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that FDR led this country out of the depression and through World War II.

Two guys sitting in air conditioned offices 70 years after the fact discussing how to make a better widget isn't terribly inspiring.

Furthermore, Hoover tried the whole laissez faire approach and that is what landed us in the mess to begin with. The American people at the time weren't interested in academic debates. They were interested in putting food on their tables. So the booted out Hoover and elected FDR four times over.

Of course, the issue here isn't really the depression. It's FDR's successes as President. You simply can't admit that, sometimes, government is the solution.

 

[geauxtohell]

"...which means that FDR is now a lousy president..."
I'll stipulate that this change of subject represents a loss by your team.

To review, the topic was whether or not the Depression was extended by FDR's policies.
My earlier post, in fact, suggested there were positive aspects to his presidency.

To receive credit, you must return to post #32 and actually read and comprehend same.

Stop trying to play academic now.

Were these:

OMG- another liberal icon bites the dust...
we need emergency intervention for our liberal friends!

Not your words?

Or more importantly, considering your plagerism:

Are you going to be a dishonest hack on this entire thread?

You are outdoing yourself.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

LMAO.

Busted.

Nice work.

 

[Truthmatters]

Another con did this to me today too.

there seems to be a rash of it going arround.

If you suspect its not their own then pick a snip and put it in google and it will come up with some sights im have come from.

Works great.

 

[Truthmatters]

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

I feel sorry for the puppy in your avitar...

Awww they are so cute when they fuck up their owen argument

 

[geauxtohell]

Another con did this to me today too.

there seems to be a rash of it going arround.

If you suspect its not their own then pick a snip and put it in google and it will come up with some sights im have come from.

Works great.

It's funny because usually PC threads are basically 95% someone else's work and 5% partisan hack analysis.

I've never seen her blatantly plagiarize before though.

I wonder if she just got lazy or was trying to pull a fast one?

You'd think a great academic mind would know better.

 

[Avorysuds]

Hmm, I'd be willing to bet anything we don't pull out of this slump even before Obama gets out of office. Unless The Reps win the house and cockblock everything AND take apart as much as they can... But that won't happen because Obama runs the country almost the same as Bush did, only like Bush on crack.

 

[Truthmatters]

Hmm, I'd be willing to bet anything we don't pull out of this slump even before Obama gets out of office. Unless The Reps win the house and cockblock everything AND take apart as much as they can... But that won't happen because Obama runs the country almost the same as Bush did, only like Bush on crack.

You have no idea what you are talking about do you?

 

[Avorysuds]

Hmm, I'd be willing to bet anything we don't pull out of this slump even before Obama gets out of office. Unless The Reps win the house and cockblock everything AND take apart as much as they can... But that won't happen because Obama runs the country almost the same as Bush did, only like Bush on crack.

You have no idea what you are talking about do you?

If you're saying that, then I must. Or maybe you can show us all where Obama is doing things different than Bush? Not more, different...

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...which means that FDR is now a lousy president..."
I'll stipulate that this change of subject represents a loss by your team.

To review, the topic was whether or not the Depression was extended by FDR's policies.
My earlier post, in fact, suggested there were positive aspects to his presidency.

To receive credit, you must return to post #32 and actually read and comprehend same.

Stop trying to play academic now.

Were these:

OMG- another liberal icon bites the dust...
we need emergency intervention for our liberal friends!

Not your words?

Or more importantly, considering your plagerism:

Are you going to be a dishonest hack on this entire thread?

You are outdoing yourself.

This was from my post #3 above:
"And, I don't recall the source of the following, but you might agree with much of it:

"Who can now imagine a day when America offered no Social Security, no unemployment compensation, no food stamps, no Federal guarantee of bank deposits, no Federal supervision of the stock market, no Federal protection for collective bargaining, no Federal standards for wages and hours, no Federal support for farm prices or rural electrification, no Federal refinancing for farm and home mortgages, no Federal commitment to high employment or to equal opportunity - in short, no Federal responsibility for Americans who found themselves, through no fault of their own, in economic or social distress?"

Not too many of our Presidents have been all good or all bad...(until now...?) "

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Now, now, you may choose to object to 'exaggerated by the authors of the study you posted in the OP' , but you ignored "In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery."from an earlier post...


How about a yes or no: was the Depression extended in the US, or as stated above, 'retarded'?


And
"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!"*

Letter to The Wall Street Journal

 

[Truthmatters]

Franklin D. Roosevelt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The GNP was 34% higher in 1936 than in 1932 and 58% higher in 1940 on the eve of war. That is, the economy grew 58% from 1932 to 1940 in 8 years of peacetime, and then grew 56% from 1940 to 1945 in 5 years of wartime

 

[PoliticalChic]

Franklin D. Roosevelt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The GNP was 34% higher in 1936 than in 1932 and 58% higher in 1940 on the eve of war. That is, the economy grew 58% from 1932 to 1940 in 8 years of peacetime, and then grew 56% from 1940 to 1945 in 5 years of wartime

One wonders why you would go on and on in support of a failed thesis...and then I realize to whom I am addressing this.

I can image what might happen if you actually engaged in thought, and research: I picture you as the Wicked Witch, in the scene when Dorothy poured water on her.

For your edification:

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .
The 10 Big Lies about America ... - Google Books



It was not until 1937 that production reached the 1929 figure. There was still 14.3 percent unemployment—and this “miniboom” soon gave way to “the steepest economic decline in the history of the US”, which “lost half the ground gained…since 1932”.15 Unemployment rose again to 19 percent and was still at 14 percent on the eve of US entry into the war in 1940. The greatest slump capitalism had known was not ended by government action. The most this may have achieved was to replace continual decline by long stagnation, leaving a very high level of unemployment and output below that of the previous decade.16 JK Galbraith summed the situation up when he wrote, “The Great Depression of the thirties never came to an end. It merely disappeared in the great mobilisation of the forties”. International Socialism: The slump of the 1930s and the crisis today
(emphasis mine)

 

[Toro]

Now, now, you may choose to object to 'exaggerated by the authors of the study you posted in the OP' , but you ignored "In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery."from an earlier post...


How about a yes or no: was the Depression extended in the US, or as stated above, 'retarded'?

No, because you are confusing NIRA with The New Deal.

If the question is "Did NIRA retard the recovery?" the answer is almost certainly yes, or at least parts of it did. Even those supporting the New Deal in the 30s came to realize that the aspects which fixed prices and created monopolies and cartels should never have happened, as stated in the link I posted. Those policies were egregiously bad. But other parts of NIRA were an enormous boon to the economy. The construction of the Interstate Highway System - perhaps the greatest transportation infrastructure network on the planet - put tens of thousands of people to work in a time when unemployment was 25% and the "real" unemployment rate was 44%. The economy still benefits from the Interstate Highways to this day.

But NIRA was not the only part of the New Deal. Other New Deal policies included reform of the banking system, monetary policies, creation of social security, etc. So isolating a part of NIRA and claiming that represents The New Deal isn't correct.

 

[Truthmatters]

Franklin D. Roosevelt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The GNP was 34% higher in 1936 than in 1932 and 58% higher in 1940 on the eve of war. That is, the economy grew 58% from 1932 to 1940 in 8 years of peacetime, and then grew 56% from 1940 to 1945 in 5 years of wartime

One wonders why you would go on and on in support of a failed thesis...and then I realize to whom I am addressing this.

I can image what might happen if you actually engaged in thought, and research: I picture you as the Wicked Witch, in the scene when Dorothy poured water on her.

For your edification:

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .
The 10 Big Lies about America ... - Google Books



It was not until 1937 that production reached the 1929 figure. There was still 14.3 percent unemployment—and this “miniboom” soon gave way to “the steepest economic decline in the history of the US”, which “lost half the ground gained…since 1932”.15 Unemployment rose again to 19 percent and was still at 14 percent on the eve of US entry into the war in 1940. The greatest slump capitalism had known was not ended by government action. The most this may have achieved was to replace continual decline by long stagnation, leaving a very high level of unemployment and output below that of the previous decade.16 JK Galbraith summed the situation up when he wrote, “The Great Depression of the thirties never came to an end. It merely disappeared in the great mobilisation of the forties”. International Socialism: The slump of the 1930s and the crisis today
(emphasis mine)

The numbers I posted are facts little girl

 

[editec]

FDR saved CAPITALISM in America.

And many of the capitalist have never forgiven him for it, either.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Franklin D. Roosevelt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The GNP was 34% higher in 1936 than in 1932 and 58% higher in 1940 on the eve of war. That is, the economy grew 58% from 1932 to 1940 in 8 years of peacetime, and then grew 56% from 1940 to 1945 in 5 years of wartime

One wonders why you would go on and on in support of a failed thesis...and then I realize to whom I am addressing this.

I can image what might happen if you actually engaged in thought, and research: I picture you as the Wicked Witch, in the scene when Dorothy poured water on her.

For your edification:

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .
The 10 Big Lies about America ... - Google Books



It was not until 1937 that production reached the 1929 figure. There was still 14.3 percent unemployment—and this “miniboom” soon gave way to “the steepest economic decline in the history of the US”, which “lost half the ground gained…since 1932”.15 Unemployment rose again to 19 percent and was still at 14 percent on the eve of US entry into the war in 1940. The greatest slump capitalism had known was not ended by government action. The most this may have achieved was to replace continual decline by long stagnation, leaving a very high level of unemployment and output below that of the previous decade.16 JK Galbraith summed the situation up when he wrote, “The Great Depression of the thirties never came to an end. It merely disappeared in the great mobilisation of the forties”. International Socialism: The slump of the 1930s and the crisis today
(emphasis mine)

The numbers I posted are facts little girl

Yes indeed, Miss Truthie, but the spin is not.

Your numbers are not an indication of an end to the Depression...therefore the premise of the OP, that the ideological imposition of drastic policies did not only not end the Depression...

but extended the burden of the American people by the better part of a decade.

So say Arthur Schlesinger, Jr,JK Galbraith, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian.

 

[geauxtohell]

Toro,

As soon as I can rep you again, I owe you for your contributions to this thread.

 

[boedicca]

Can you imagine 8 years of 17% average unemployment? The only thing Great about FDR was how he grew the government. That's it! He sucked at everything else.

For years I have been telling mindless FDR was Great Zombies that their Stockholm Syndrome is not my problem and it's good to see a university finally catching on

Now we know why Obama thinks he's the 21st Century FDR.