WWII and the Great Depression

[expat_panama]

FDR and the New Deal were a HUGE success...

It's easier to think that by not understanding the gdp which is measured in $, not %. Here's the GDP in $ (billions, chained 2005)

The depression began with the huge Smoot-Hawley tax-hikes in 1930 and continued with FDR's war on commerce, and it ended with the war changed to being against the Axis.

The curve is the same. FDR's policies worked...

Not all of FDR's policies, just some. FDR's war on business kept GDP at $1T in 2005$ and his changing his attacks over to foreign enemies let the gdp double.

...your image is not from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. It is a doctored image from La Universidad Ngäbe-Bukle

LOL! What matters are the numbers, and your "ourfuture.org" can not change the GDP from $ to %. Hey guy, it's all there at the BEA for all to see, and if you have trouble navigating the site let me know and I can show you their GDP records.

 

[Bfgrn]

It's easier to think that by not understanding the gdp which is measured in $, not %. Here's the GDP in $ (billions, chained 2005)

The depression began with the huge Smoot-Hawley tax-hikes in 1930 and continued with FDR's war on commerce, and it ended with the war changed to being against the Axis.

The curve is the same. FDR's policies worked...

Not all of FDR's policies, just some. FDR's war on business kept GDP at $1T in 2005$ and his changing his attacks over to foreign enemies let the gdp double.

...your image is not from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. It is a doctored image from La Universidad Ngäbe-Bukle

LOL! What matters are the numbers, and your "ourfuture.org" can not change the GDP from $ to %. Hey guy, it's all there at the BEA for all to see, and if you have trouble navigating the site let me know and I can show you their GDP records.

You have all the phony right wing talking points down pat. Tell me Einstein, HOW could a tariff passed in 1930, cause the 1929 crash?

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was signed into law on June 17, 1930, and raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods. Legislation was passed in 1934 that weakened the effect of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. In effect, the 1934 legislation functionally repealed Smoot-Hawley.

The US was already in a Depression when Smoot-Hawley was enacted. Prior to Smoot-Hawley, the 1929 Trade Surplus was +0.38% of our GDP. In other words, it contributed less than 1/200th to our economy.

The infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 was the last outrage inflicted by the Republican protectionists. Rates on dutiable imports rose to their highest levels in over 100 years. Increases of 50 percent were common and some rates went up 100 percent.

The charts are IDENTICAL...it doesn't matter what is in the left ledger, and you are converting to 2005 dollars...did 2005 dollars exist in 1929?

But we do know what caused the 1937 recession...A second cyclical downturn officially began in May 1937 when FDR, always a fiscal conservative, mistakenly thought the economy had become self-sustaining and slashed public spending programs to balance the budget. These harsh and premature spending cuts caused another severe recession that ended after 13 months in June 1938.

Tell me Einstein, WHAT policies are Republicans calling for today??? 'slashed public spending programs to balance the budget'

 

[KissMy]

You have all the phony right wing talking points down pat. Tell me Einstein, HOW could a tariff passed in 1930, cause the 1929 crash?

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was signed into law on June 17, 1930, and raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods. Legislation was passed in 1934 that weakened the effect of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. In effect, the 1934 legislation functionally repealed Smoot-Hawley.

The US was already in a Depression when Smoot-Hawley was enacted. Prior to Smoot-Hawley, the 1929 Trade Surplus was +0.38% of our GDP. In other words, it contributed less than 1/200th to our economy.

The infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 was the last outrage inflicted by the Republican protectionists. Rates on dutiable imports rose to their highest levels in over 100 years. Increases of 50 percent were common and some rates went up 100 percent.

The charts are IDENTICAL...it doesn't matter what is in the left ledger, and you are converting to 2005 dollars...did 2005 dollars exist in 1929?

But we do know what caused the 1937 recession...A second cyclical downturn officially began in May 1937 when FDR, always a fiscal conservative, mistakenly thought the economy had become self-sustaining and slashed public spending programs to balance the budget. These harsh and premature spending cuts caused another severe recession that ended after 13 months in June 1938.

Tell me Einstein, WHAT policies are Republicans calling for today??? 'slashed public spending programs to balance the budget'

The Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 was introduced early in 1929 & had broad support. The fact that is was going to pass started a trade war. Even Al Gore argues that was the case in his debate with Ross Perot on CNN.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X6srb1Os-A&feature=related"]NAFTA: Ross Perot and Al Gore Debate 1993[/ame]

 

[Bfgrn]

You have all the phony right wing talking points down pat. Tell me Einstein, HOW could a tariff passed in 1930, cause the 1929 crash?

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was signed into law on June 17, 1930, and raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods. Legislation was passed in 1934 that weakened the effect of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. In effect, the 1934 legislation functionally repealed Smoot-Hawley.

The US was already in a Depression when Smoot-Hawley was enacted. Prior to Smoot-Hawley, the 1929 Trade Surplus was +0.38% of our GDP. In other words, it contributed less than 1/200th to our economy.

The infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 was the last outrage inflicted by the Republican protectionists. Rates on dutiable imports rose to their highest levels in over 100 years. Increases of 50 percent were common and some rates went up 100 percent.

The charts are IDENTICAL...it doesn't matter what is in the left ledger, and you are converting to 2005 dollars...did 2005 dollars exist in 1929?

But we do know what caused the 1937 recession...A second cyclical downturn officially began in May 1937 when FDR, always a fiscal conservative, mistakenly thought the economy had become self-sustaining and slashed public spending programs to balance the budget. These harsh and premature spending cuts caused another severe recession that ended after 13 months in June 1938.

Tell me Einstein, WHAT policies are Republicans calling for today??? 'slashed public spending programs to balance the budget'

The Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 was introduced early in 1929 & had broad support. The fact that is was going to pass started a trade war. Even Al Gore argues that was the case in his debate with Ross Perot on CNN.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X6srb1Os-A&feature=related"]NAFTA: Ross Perot and Al Gore Debate 1993[/ame]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 was sponsored by 2 Republicans, and passed by Republicans. The vote was largely on party lines. Republicans in the House voted 230 to 27 in favor of final passage. Ten of the 27 Republicans voting no were Progressives from Wisconsin and Minnesota. Democrats voted 150 to 15 against final passage. Ten of the 15 Democrats voting for final passage were from Louisiana or Florida and represented citrus or sugar interests that received significant new protection under the bill.

President Hoover had expressed reservations about the wide-ranging nature of the bill and had privately expressed fears that the bill might provoke retaliation from America's trading partners. He received a petition signed by more than 1,000 economists, urging him to veto the bill. Ultimately, he signed the Smoot-Hawley bill into law on June 17, 1930.

 

[KissMy]

You have all the phony right wing talking points down pat. Tell me Einstein, HOW could a tariff passed in 1930, cause the 1929 crash?

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was signed into law on June 17, 1930, and raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods. Legislation was passed in 1934 that weakened the effect of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. In effect, the 1934 legislation functionally repealed Smoot-Hawley.

The US was already in a Depression when Smoot-Hawley was enacted. Prior to Smoot-Hawley, the 1929 Trade Surplus was +0.38% of our GDP. In other words, it contributed less than 1/200th to our economy.

The infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 was the last outrage inflicted by the Republican protectionists. Rates on dutiable imports rose to their highest levels in over 100 years. Increases of 50 percent were common and some rates went up 100 percent.

The charts are IDENTICAL...it doesn't matter what is in the left ledger, and you are converting to 2005 dollars...did 2005 dollars exist in 1929?

But we do know what caused the 1937 recession...A second cyclical downturn officially began in May 1937 when FDR, always a fiscal conservative, mistakenly thought the economy had become self-sustaining and slashed public spending programs to balance the budget. These harsh and premature spending cuts caused another severe recession that ended after 13 months in June 1938.

Tell me Einstein, WHAT policies are Republicans calling for today??? 'slashed public spending programs to balance the budget'

The Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 was introduced early in 1929 & had broad support. The fact that is was going to pass started a trade war. Even Al Gore argues that was the case in his debate with Ross Perot on CNN.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X6srb1Os-A&feature=related"]NAFTA: Ross Perot and Al Gore Debate 1993[/ame]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 was sponsored by 2 Republicans, and passed by Republicans. The vote was largely on party lines. Republicans in the House voted 230 to 27 in favor of final passage. Ten of the 27 Republicans voting no were Progressives from Wisconsin and Minnesota. Democrats voted 150 to 15 against final passage. Ten of the 15 Democrats voting for final passage were from Louisiana or Florida and represented citrus or sugar interests that received significant new protection under the bill.

President Hoover had expressed reservations about the wide-ranging nature of the bill and had privately expressed fears that the bill might provoke retaliation from America's trading partners. He received a petition signed by more than 1,000 economists, urging him to veto the bill. Ultimately, he signed the Smoot-Hawley bill into law on June 17, 1930.

I always knew All Gore was full of shit!

 

[Avorysuds]

I think this is a very interesting topic but the thing that stands out to me the most just 10 years prior to the Great depression the country was in a depression. Harding walked in, cut taxes, cut spending and cut some regulation… The US then goes through an huge boom for about 8-9 years. This took no stimulus, no mass regulation, no court packing or giant welfare programs. This takes about 18 months to get the US out of a depression, not a recession, a depression that prior to Harding was being “stimulated” through big Government spending, higher taxes and programs.

Just 10 years later Hoover and FDR do Big Government programs, one after another for about 12 years. The US is stuck in a depression until a war comes along that gobbles up 10% of the entire US’s population (unemployed people) and sends them to war.

This is where the claims that FDR finally managed to spend enough to save the US through mass stimulus. But there are many things left off the table for discussion.

WWII literally killed off a huge portion of the UE people, the poor…
After WWII taxes were cut, spending was cut (regardless of much of it being military spending seeing as people count that as stimulus) regulations were cut, programs FDR started were being taken apart.

And here is one of the most important things. The US was one of the few countries to NOT take any damage from the war. While most of the top countries prior to WWII were in ruin. As countries needed to rebuild, luck would have it that the US was not starting a process of rebuilding their own country after bombed into the ground… The US was not a country where huge amounts of the population were killed off. The US had a unique instance where demand for goods would reach a worldwide historic high and most of that demand would be looking to the US to produce the goods and services. THAT created one HUGE fucking boom.

The privet sector was able to grow due to tax cuts, spending cuts and regulation cuts. Mix that with the biggest demands for good the world to this date has ever seen and the US near instantly becomes the world dominate super power. Not because of FD fucking R’s welfare spending.

 

[Widdekind]

Inexpertly, Al Gore was correct to claim, that Ross Perot's "phony exports" (intermediate goods, exported to Mexico, installed into final goods, and imported back into the US) were accounted in his (Al Gore) own statistic, of $5B net export trade surplus with Mexico, in 1992. Ross Perot also agreed, citing glass exported to Mexico for $100, and re-imported, installed in a car, for $110, generating a net trade deficit of $10.

Inexpertly, Ross Perot seem incorrect, to imply that US export of business capital goods ("used equipment from Zenith") are not "real" exports. By focusing only on personal consumer goods, Perot was able to reduce a net trade surplus, into a deficit.

Why would profitable (inter-national) trade (with Mexico) be bad ? If they buy "big stuff" (capital goods) more than "small stuff" (consumer goods), then who cares ? If you want to oppose trade deficits, then look not to limiting their imports -- look to expanding your exports. Don't try to hike their prices (with taxes), lower your own (by being more competitive). Advocating "protectionism" amounts to "hey, guys, why don't you all just pay me more". ("Why don't you work harder, to make paying you more worthwhile?") economic competition generates prosperity; Protectionism amounts to government-sanctioned extortion

 

[expat_panama]

The curve is the same. FDR's policies worked...

Not all of FDR's policies, just some. FDR's war on business kept GDP at $1T in 2005$ and his changing his attacks over to foreign enemies let the gdp double.

...your image is not from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. It is a doctored image from La Universidad Ngäbe-Bukle

LOL! What matters are the numbers, and your "ourfuture.org" can not change the GDP from $ to %. Hey guy, it's all there at the BEA for all to see, and if you have trouble navigating the site let me know and I can show you their GDP records.

You have all the phony right wing talking points down pat. Tell me Einstein...

Whoa, that just cost you ten bucks, you got to learn to read the warning signs--

Bottom line here is that it doesn't matter if you fell out of the snarky tree and hit every branch on the way down, GDP is still measured in $ not %. Something else is that whether people like it or not, nobody's going to hire anyone when employers are public enemy no. 1.



Reality. There's just no way around it.

 

[Widdekind]

Harding walked in, cut taxes, cut spending and cut some regulation… The US then goes through an huge boom for about 8-9 years. This took no stimulus, no mass regulation, no court packing or giant welfare programs. This takes about 18 months to get the US out of a depression, not a recession, a depression that prior to Harding was being “stimulated” through big Government spending, higher taxes and programs

the "roaring" 1920s were fueled by debt. The US private sector accumulated $50B in debt, during that period ($7B/year). GDP averaged $90B/year, so private-sector debt was 5-10% of the expansion.

Then, from 1929-33, after the stock-market crash, the public began demanding their deposits back from banks (who had squandered money on speculation); and banks were (therefore) demanding their loans back from borrowers. The US private-sector was deep in debt. Everybody stopped borrowing, and spending beyond their means. Then, everybody stopped spending even further, to save, to pay back debts. Meanwhile, ten thousand banks failed, wiping out millions of deposits, wiping out existing wealth. That made people save yet more, and spend yet less, to pay back debts. With nobody borrowing, and nobody even spending, and everybody broke and saving everything that they could; aggregate spending (GDP) fell by half. With the Fiscal Stimulus, of the New Deal, public-sector debt drove the expansion recovery.

In the 1920s, the private sector was borrowing, spending, and re-circulating money, keeping the economy going. In the 1930s, the public sector began borrowing, spending, etc. The difference was that in the 1930s, because of the shock, the private sector was not borrowing -- they were not accumulating new debt, and were only borrowing at a trickle (as fast as they repaid old debts). Thus, the public, via government, had to step in, and borrow, to re-circulate savings, and keep the economy going.

In both cases, "Fiscal Stimulus" boosted the economy. In the 1920s, "private stimulus" borrowing boosted the economy; in the 1930s, "public stimulus" did so. "Stimulus" can be public, or private, and is normally the latter

 

[Bfgrn]

I think this is a very interesting topic but the thing that stands out to me the most just 10 years prior to the Great depression the country was in a depression. Harding walked in, cut taxes, cut spending and cut some regulation… The US then goes through an huge boom for about 8-9 years. This took no stimulus, no mass regulation, no court packing or giant welfare programs. This takes about 18 months to get the US out of a depression, not a recession, a depression that prior to Harding was being “stimulated” through big Government spending, higher taxes and programs.

Just 10 years later Hoover and FDR do Big Government programs, one after another for about 12 years. The US is stuck in a depression until a war comes along that gobbles up 10% of the entire US’s population (unemployed people) and sends them to war.

This is where the claims that FDR finally managed to spend enough to save the US through mass stimulus. But there are many things left off the table for discussion.

WWII literally killed off a huge portion of the UE people, the poor…
After WWII taxes were cut, spending was cut (regardless of much of it being military spending seeing as people count that as stimulus) regulations were cut, programs FDR started were being taken apart.

And here is one of the most important things. The US was one of the few countries to NOT take any damage from the war. While most of the top countries prior to WWII were in ruin. As countries needed to rebuild, luck would have it that the US was not starting a process of rebuilding their own country after bombed into the ground… The US was not a country where huge amounts of the population were killed off. The US had a unique instance where demand for goods would reach a worldwide historic high and most of that demand would be looking to the US to produce the goods and services. THAT created one HUGE fucking boom.

The privet sector was able to grow due to tax cuts, spending cuts and regulation cuts. Mix that with the biggest demands for good the world to this date has ever seen and the US near instantly becomes the world dominate super power. Not because of FD fucking R’s welfare spending.

If your eye doctor gives you a prescription for new glasses and it solves your vision problem, do you go back to the eye doctor when you have the flu?

The depression of 1920–21 was caused by shifting from a wartime to a peacetime economy. Adjusting from war time to peace time was an enormous shock for the U.S. economy. Factories focused on war time production had to shut down or retool their production.

Troops returning from the war also created a surge in the civilian labor force.

PLEASE tell me what war ended in 1929?

 

[Bfgrn]

Not all of FDR's policies, just some. FDR's war on business kept GDP at $1T in 2005$ and his changing his attacks over to foreign enemies let the gdp double.
LOL! What matters are the numbers, and your "ourfuture.org" can not change the GDP from $ to %. Hey guy, it's all there at the BEA for all to see, and if you have trouble navigating the site let me know and I can show you their GDP records.

You have all the phony right wing talking points down pat. Tell me Einstein...

Whoa, that just cost you ten bucks, you got to learn to read the warning signs--

Bottom line here is that it doesn't matter if you fell out of the snarky tree and hit every branch on the way down, GDP is still measured in $ not %. Something else is that whether people like it or not, nobody's going to hire anyone when employers are public enemy no. 1.



Reality. There's just no way around it.

Yes, GDP is measured in $ not %, but it is totally irrelevant to our discussion, because we are both showing the EXACT SAME graph with one different label. And the point is that the GDP increased under FDR's policies. And it did not increase marginally, it increased drastically. As a matter of fact, FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST annual increase in GDP in American history.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars


1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9 <-----FDR takes office. BUT, it is still Hoover's budget
1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5 <-----FDR dies.

FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937&#8211;1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Franklin D. Roosevelt administration created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

 

[Wiseacre]

You have all the phony right wing talking points down pat. Tell me Einstein...

Whoa, that just cost you ten bucks, you got to learn to read the warning signs--

Bottom line here is that it doesn't matter if you fell out of the snarky tree and hit every branch on the way down, GDP is still measured in $ not %. Something else is that whether people like it or not, nobody's going to hire anyone when employers are public enemy no. 1.



Reality. There's just no way around it.

Yes, GDP is measured in $ not %, but it is totally irrelevant to our discussion, because we are both showing the EXACT SAME graph with one different label. And the point is that the GDP increased under FDR's policies. And it did not increase marginally, it increased drastically. As a matter of fact, FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST annual increase in GDP in American history.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars


1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9 <-----FDR takes office. BUT, it is still Hoover's budget
1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5 <-----FDR dies.

FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937&#8211;1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Franklin D. Roosevelt administration created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

Well, acourse he did, part of GDP is gov't spending and transfers, and the man spent money like it was going out of style. That's one reason why the recession of 1937 happened, he stopped spending as much, and the economy stopped. Which tells you that 4 years of stimulus spending did not prime the pump, same as 3 and a half years of Obama overspending, it doesn't get the economy back on it's feet. It helped people who needed help, and that's fine, but it doesn't turn the economy around on a permanent basis. And BTW, FDR did a better job of effective and efficient spending than Obama did.

Oh, and did I mention FDR also raised taxes? Nothing kills a recovery faster than raising taxes.

 

[Widdekind]

part of GDP is gov't spending and transfers

yes, and no -- transfers are not purchases, of new & final goods & services. Transfers & subsidies (personal & corporate welfare) are flows of money given for no economic activity (labor, assets, etc.). transfers & subsidies are not GDP

one reason why the recession of 1937 happened, he stopped spending as much, and the economy stopped... FDR also raised taxes? Nothing kills a recovery faster than raising taxes.

Fiscal Stimulus is high spending on low taxes (G-T >> 0). One factor involved in the 1938 recession, was "austerity", "Fiscal consolidation", "balanced budgets". Government spending decreased, whilst taxes increased. Recovery was rapidly rendered recession. Why does that not prove the point, that Fiscal Stimulus succeeds, whilst "austerity" fails (during deep downturns) ? "Bfgrn's" statistics are hard to refute

Logically, during depressions, Government need not be the big spender. Somebody needs to step up, borrow un-borrowed money at low interest-rates, and reflate & recirculate the money supply. But Big Business could "stimulate" the economy, similar to Government

 

[Widdekind]

please observe, that over the years, as the US economy has grown bigger, the rate of growth has decreased, under all Presidents, of both parties. But, for any given period, growth under Democrats was above trend, whilst growth under Republicans has been below trend. For example, Clinton outdid Reagan; Carter matched Nixon; Kennedy outdid Eisenhower. To what do you attribute higher growth in real output under Democrats ? That seems like a strong, and sound, index of what policies work better (if not perfectly). What works out wrong (or right) under Republicans ?

 

[Bfgrn]

Whoa, that just cost you ten bucks, you got to learn to read the warning signs--

Bottom line here is that it doesn't matter if you fell out of the snarky tree and hit every branch on the way down, GDP is still measured in $ not %. Something else is that whether people like it or not, nobody's going to hire anyone when employers are public enemy no. 1.



Reality. There's just no way around it.

Yes, GDP is measured in $ not %, but it is totally irrelevant to our discussion, because we are both showing the EXACT SAME graph with one different label. And the point is that the GDP increased under FDR's policies. And it did not increase marginally, it increased drastically. As a matter of fact, FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST annual increase in GDP in American history.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars


1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9 <-----FDR takes office. BUT, it is still Hoover's budget
1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5 <-----FDR dies.

FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937–1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Franklin D. Roosevelt administration created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

Well, acourse he did, part of GDP is gov't spending and transfers, and the man spent money like it was going out of style. That's one reason why the recession of 1937 happened, he stopped spending as much, and the economy stopped. Which tells you that 4 years of stimulus spending did not prime the pump, same as 3 and a half years of Obama overspending, it doesn't get the economy back on it's feet. It helped people who needed help, and that's fine, but it doesn't turn the economy around on a permanent basis. And BTW, FDR did a better job of effective and efficient spending than Obama did.

Oh, and did I mention FDR also raised taxes? Nothing kills a recovery faster than raising taxes.

"It helped people who needed help, and that's fine" - Wiseacre

It is more than just 'fine', it is imperative. It is a moral obligation of a civil society. It is what separates a government 'of the people, by the people and for the people' from a dictatorship. It is what separates FDR from Stalin, who espoused the same social Darwinism conservatives currently espouse, and conservatives espoused in FDR's day.

During the Great Depression conservatives raised the same objections to F.D.R.’s programs that conservatives today raise about Obama's. Conservatives during the Great Depression said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

FDR was not a a "tax-and-spend" liberal, Roosevelt was in fact deeply committed to a balanced budget. He presented Congress with the Economy Act, a bill that put the federal government on a spending diet by cutting the salaries of federal employees, scaling back defense spending, and reducing veterans' pensions.

Obama is not a "tax-and-spend" liberal either. He put a two-year pay freeze in effect for civilian federal workers, and under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Revenue from taxes are lower now than when President Obama took office. That's because one of the first things he did after being sworn in was to cut taxes for working Americans (about $400 for each worker). But this was not a Republican-style tax cut, because it only affected workers who had earned income -- not the super-rich who make most of their money from capital gains. That's why the Republicans refuse to admit it even happened. But whether they want to admit it or not, taxes for most Americans are lower now than they were during the Bush administration.

And spending (as a percentage of GDP) is also lower under President Obama. The federal government is spending less now than it was spending when President Obama took office.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[Widdekind]

spending (as a percentage of GDP) is also lower under President Obama. The federal government is spending less now than it was spending when President Obama took office.

government purchases, as a percent of GDP, fell from 20% to 18% under Pres. Bush. Then, the 2008 recession reduced private-sector spending, so that Public-sector spending spiked back up to 20% of the total. Under Pres. Obama, government purchases have fallen back down to 18%. Government purchases ("Government GDP spending") are no higher (and no lower) under Pres. Obama, than they were under Pres. Bush (relative to total private + Public GDP spending).

If you include welfare (transfers & subsidies) and other outlays, gross Government spending (all forms) is +5% higher after 2008, as compared to before 2008.

 

[Widdekind]

following up on the real GDP growth plot of "Brgrn", i broke down the total growth in real GDP, into the standard categories (C, I, G).

• Stereotypically, Republicans tend to reduce Public spending (G), compared to Democrats -- Public spending accounts for much of the Democratic advantage
• However, even looking only at the private sector (C + I), Democrats still seem to be better -- the best private sector growth (to date) occurred under Clinton, sustained through both terms; Reagan's first term is third; followed by JFK + Johnson -- only Democrats seem to sustain private sector growth through two consecutive terms (Clinton, JFK+Johnson)
• Government growth "crowds out" business growth -- most of the time, high growth in private investment (I) co-occurs with low growth in Public purchasing (G), et vice versa
• Government growth "stimulates" (?) consumption growth -- most of the time, the growth in personal consumption (C) is similar to the growth in government purchasing (G)

Inexpertly, the Democratic advantage has tended to be (mathematically) "C + G". Republicans may have a slight advantage in "I", especially if you consider NAFTA as a "Republican-like policy", perhaps a political compromise of sorts. But, business investments are a small fraction of US GDP.

 

[Widdekind]

the following figure break down the data, into GDP sub-categories:

• personal consumption, non-durable goods (C, G-ND), e.g. food
• personal consumption, durable goods (C, G-D), e.g. cars
• personal consumption, services (C, S), e.g. haircuts
  
• private investment, residential (I, R), e.g. houses
• private investment, non-residential (I, NR), e.g. factories
  
• government purchases, consumption (G, C), e.g. teachers, police, soldiers
• government purchases, investment (G, I), e.g. ships, bases

showing that:

• types of GDP spending only contract under Republicans
• under Republicans, spending on "big stuff" (cars; houses & factories; ships, bases) often decreases
• personal spending on "small stuff" (food & haircuts) has never decreased, under any President (since WWII)
• public spending on education, law enforcement, & national defense has never decreased, either

Decreased spending on "big stuff" indicates downturns, recessions, & depressions. For some reason, the US economy is hammered, every time a Republican is elected President.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

but because they had the money to buy the things they wanted

too stupid and perfectly liberal!! if having money would end a depression we'd just print it and distribute it until everyone had it!!


An economy works well only when there is capitalist discipline. The more government interference the less capitalist discipline and more recession or depression.

A liberal is a liberal because he lacks the IQ to understand capitalism.

 

[Bfgrn]

but because they had the money to buy the things they wanted

too stupid and perfectly liberal!! if having money would end a depression we'd just print it and distribute it until everyone had it!!


An economy works well only when there is capitalist discipline. The more government interference the less capitalist discipline and more recession or depression.

A liberal is a liberal because he lacks the IQ to understand capitalism.

The first democrats, the classical Athenians, had a word for the ideal free marketer, the homo economicus, working for his own economic gain but unconcerned with the community. It was not particularly complimentary, the ancestor of our word “idiot.” Pericles expressed the sentiment underlying this: “We regard the citizen who takes no part in these [public] duties not as unambitious but as useless…”

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'