Did FDR's policies help us get out of the Great Depression?

[PubliusInfinitum]

That is the certain point where any would-be serious argument fails...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Let the record reflect that the arguments in this thread have clearly established that the left-think policies of FDR were detrimental TO THE US ECONOMY on the whole and exascerbated an prolonged the typical market correction of 1929, converting it into a world wide depression lasting well over a decade...

 

[Old Rocks]

Let the record reflect that the arguments in this thread have clearly established that the left-think policies of FDR were detrimental TO THE US ECONOMY on the whole and exascerbated an prolonged the typical market correction of 1929, converting it into a world wide depression lasting well over a decade...

On your say so?

 

[Toro]

That is the certain point where any would-be serious argument fails...

Or you could go look it up in an Econ 101 textbook. If you own one.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I never said demand was "just fine." What I said, in fact what I showed was that GDP began rising in 1933, which is evidence that demand did not collapse as you argued.

I did not argue that demand had collapsed... I said demand was down... as indicated by YOUR GRAPH witless...(assuming you want to lean on your argument... Although I wouldn't blame ya if ya didn't... but you claim that demand wasn't down... and that GDP reflects demand... Well your graph shows GDP well below the ‘29 levels... and BELOW usually tends to indicate a 'down condition'... what’s more with unemployment at 14% and FDR passing policy which prohibits the cutting of PRICES, PRODUCTION AND LABOR; where is the basis that demand is anywhere BUT DOWN? If demand were not down, what would be the rationale for passing such legislation? ) I also said that GDP is NOT a reflection of DEMAND it is a reflection of PRODUCTION... Your argument...


FAILS

There is a huge difference. You are saying that FDR caused the Depression.

Never said any such thing... I said that Hoover and FDR and the left-think policies they advanced are 100% responsible for converting a typical market CORRECTION AND CONVERTING IT INTO A GLOBAL DEPRESSION LASTING WELL BEYOND A DECADE.

This is simply wrong. GDP turned up a few months after FDR took office.

Yes shortly after FDR made it illegal to cut prices, cut production and to cut wages... It would be pretty damn tough for GDP to fall under such conditions...

Almost all of the decline in production occurred under Hoover.

Correction: "Almost all of the STATISTICAL decline in GDP occurred under Hoover..." I imagine that had he had the chance to make it illegal to cut Production, he would have gotten around to it. FDR in NO WAY departed from Hoover's Progressive playbook... In fact FDR AMPLIFIED Hoover's programs... expanding them exponentially.

You might make an argument that the New Deal did not do much to cure the Depression. That may be.

Yes and it may be that a flaring case of herpes may cut production of one's love life... it simply a matter of how one defines' the terms... I define the terms here sis... and the boiling growths of FDRs policies had precisely Zero positive effects on the economy... NONE, ZIP, NILL, NADA... FDR's policies were designed to hinder the production of wealth and that is precisely what they did...

I tend to think that liberals put too much stock in the New Deal and that much of the end of the recession was due to prices finally clearing across the economy. But I am not making an ideological argument.

You just did... you made the ideological argument of the unwashed moderate... the progressive centrist...

I am making an empirical argument.

I just love it when you idiots learn a new word... You're making an argument which seeks to set aside any accountability for the failures of left-think and the economic policies from which it ooze... You're making massive failures in reasoning, projecting that GDP reflects demand when all GDP reflects is PRODUCTION...

And what we know is that GDP turned upward a few months after FDR came to office.

Hey! Say it three more times and it might become three times as true... GDP reflected Federal policy which prevented any potential for PRODUCTION TO DECREASE.

Thus, it is simply dead wrong to say that FDR caused the recession.

Well sure... it wasn't FDR that caused the recession... it was FDRs POLCIEIS WHICH CAUSED THE DEPRESSION!

You want to talk about his second term? Fine. I might agree with you. Raising taxes and balancing a budget during a weak economy is bad policy, not to mention his ridiculous anti-business rhetoric. But that is far different than FDR causing the Depression.

Really? Well then we're not using the same definition of 'cause' or 'depression'... perhaps you'll cite your understanding of them... you can find mine in Webster's Collegiate 2008

As for the argument of demand versus production, GDP = C + I + G + NX.

ROFLMNAO... thanks sis... I should point out that the best sign that one is debating an idiot is they post a WIKI-source...

Hey... try this... join a formal debate club and trot that WIKI source... BUT be sure to call me and let me know so I can be there to video tape it... it's always a laugh riot.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Let the record reflect that the arguments in this thread have clearly established that the left-think policies of FDR were detrimental TO THE US ECONOMY on the whole and exascerbated an prolonged the typical market correction of 1929, converting it into a world wide depression lasting well over a decade...

On your say so?

Isn't it cool when the tools prove their reading comprehension limitations?

 

[Toro]

You don't even understand basic economics.

I did not argue that demand had collapsed... I said demand was down... as indicated by YOUR GRAPH witless... I also said that GDP is NOT a reflection of DEMAND it is a reflection of PRODUCTION... Your argument...


FAILS

Production and income are a function of demand.

I'll put it into a picture form since you seem to fail to understand even the most basic of concepts. This is a supply and demand curve. Ever see one of these before?

If demand falls from D2 to D1, total income falls from the box 0/P2/Q2 to 0/P1/Q1. Demand falls, income falls. And in the GDP function, income = production. So demand falls, production falls, income falls. It is all related. And its pretty simple.

YEs shortly after FDR made it illegal to cut prices, cut production and to cut wages... It would be pretty damn tough for GDP to fall under such conditions...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

He did not make it illegal to cut all prices, he did not make it illegal to cut all production, and he did not make it illegal to cut all wages. If we believed your line of thinking, price and production controls would have distorted the economy such that capital would have flowed into areas of guaranteed profit that it would have been sucked out of other areas of the economy, increasing the deflation in the areas draining capital. Thus, in aggregate, GDP would have continued to fall.

Yes and it may be that a flaring case of herpes may cut production of one's love life... it simply a matter fo how one defines' the terms... I define the terms here sis... and the boiling growths of FDRs policies had precisely ZERo positive effects on the economy... NONE, ZIP, NILL, NADA... FDr's policies were designed to hinder the producton of wealth and that is precisely what they did...

Repeating the same old nonsense does not make it true.

You just did... you made the ideological argument of the unwashed moderate... the progressive centrist... I just love it when you idiots learn a new word... You're making an argument which seeks to set aside any accountability for the failures of left-think and the economic policies from which it ooze... You're making massive failures in reasoning, projecting that GDP relfects demand when all GDP reflects is PRODUCTION...

See above.

Well sure... it wasn't FDR that caused the recession... it was FDRs POLCIEIS WHICH CAUSED THE DEPRESSION!

The gray areas in the graph depict economic contractions. The Depression ended in March 1933.

Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions

Yet, the fringe Right wants us to believe that the Depression - which started more than three years before FDR was elected and ended two months after he was elected - was the fault of his policies.

Yeah, right.

ROFLMNAO... thanks sis... I should point out that the best sign that one is debating an idiot is they post a WIKI-source...

Hey... try this... join a formal debate club and trot that WIKI source... BUT be sure to call me and let me know so I can be there to video tape it... it's always a laugh riot.

This is a basic truism of macroeconomics that you will find in any introductory level course on economics. You trying to discredit this because it is in Wikipedia says more about you than Wikipedia.

Hey look, Wikipedia has an entry on the moon!

Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess it doesn't exist!

I'd like to see your formal debating club!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

OH golly... more graphs... lovely.

Show me on the graph where it speaks to the implementation of federal policy that prohibits the decrease in prices, wages and production...

Now that stat in no way reflects the FACT that FDRs policy did not spur the creation of wealth... IN FACT: FDRs POLICY SET DIS-INCENTIVES TO CREATE WEALTH BECAUSE THEY DRAMATICALLY PUNISHED SUCH... and the creation of WEALTH IS THE ONLY VEHICLE BY WHICH PRODUCTION CAN BE LEGITIMATELY INCREASED and VIABLY SUSTAINED.

Now when unemployment is UP and the state of affairs are such that the governing officer rationalizes a need to implement a POLICY WHICH PREVENTS THE LOWERING OF PRICES, WAGES AND PRODUCTION... I'd say that's a fair sign that DEMAND IS WAY THE FUCK DOWN, Skippy.

 

[Toro]

OH golly... more graphs... lovely.

Show me on the graph where it speaks to the implementation of federal policy that prohibits the decrease in prices, wages and production...

Now that stat in no way reflects the FACT that FDRs policy did not spur the creation of wealth... IN FACT: FDRs POLICY SET DIS-INCENTIVES TO CREATE WEALTH BECAUSE THEY DRAMATICALLY PUNISHED SUCH... and the creation of WEALTH IS THE ONLY VEHICLE BY WHICH PRODUCTION CAN BE LEGITIMATELY INCREASED and VIABLY SUSTAINED.

Now when unemployment is UP and the state of affairs are such that the governing officer rationalizes a need to implement a POLICY WHICH PREVENTS THE LOWERING OF PRICES, WAGES AND PRODUCTION... I'd say that's a fair sign that DEMAND IS WAY THE FUCK DOWN, Skippy.

Wrong again.

Demand did not fall after FDR was elected. It rose.

St. Louis Fed: Series: PCECA, Personal Consumption Expenditures

Oh, sooo sorry again. Empiricism bitch-slaps you again!

Spin it now, PI. I can't wait for your "consumption isn't demand" argument!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'd like to see your formal debating club!

No you wouldn't... I've read your work and it's unlikely that you'd have enjoyed them in the slightest. You're a cut and paste hack... you use dubious sources, tend towards vulgar misrepresentation of statistical data and chronically succumb to poorly constructed logic, resulting in unsound reasoning. For instance you need to demand that GDP growth from the bottom of the worst economic period in modern human history is a reflection of growing demand... wholly setting aside the implementation of policy implemented during the exact same period which cannot be argued to have been designed for any potential end other than to offset falling demand. Also your entire 'empiricist' schtick... pure ad populum drivel.

FTR: nothing here is even remotely representative of formal debate... except the Advocates of Social Science remain sub-par and generally inept and wholly incapable of producing an intellectually sound, logically valid argument; not at all unlike yourself.

 

[Zoomie1980]

There ya go!

Actually, after WWII, in 1946, we went right back into the depression. Unemployment SKYROCKETED to almost 20%. Truman quickly pressed congress to gut the New Deal leaving only Social Security and that, along with the Cold War Defense expenditures, essentially changed America into it's post-war economic system, briefly returning to New Deal style policies under Johnson, which lead to a 15 year stagnation only to finally be fully gutted by Reagan, and supported by Clinton to lead to a 25 year run of unbridled growth.

 

[Toro]

No you wouldn't... I've read your work and it's unlikely that you'd have enjoyed them in the slightest. You're a cut and paste hack... you use dubious sources, tend towards vulgar misrepresentation of statistical data and chronically succumb to poorly constructed logic, resulting in unsound reasoning. For instance you need to demand that GDP growth from the bottom of the worst economic period in modern human history is a reflection of growing demand... wholly setting aside the implementation of policy implemented during the exact same period which cannot be argued to have been designed for any potential end other than to offset falling demand. Also your entire 'empiricist' schtick... pure ad populum drivel.

Have you ever taken an economics class or read an economics text? It seems pretty clear that you don't even understand basic economics and thus are in no position to be able to determine what is sound economic logic and what is not. You cannot even determine what sources are good and what are not.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Wrong again.

Demand did not fall after FDR was elected. It rose.

St. Louis Fed: Series: PCECA, Personal Consumption Expenditures

Oh, sooo sorry again. Empiricism bitch-slaps you again!

Spin it now, PI. I can't wait for your "consumption isn't demand" argument!

But that is not a graph which charts demand... it is a graph which charts PRODUCTION... Upon his taking power FDR passed numerous articles of legislation which prohibited business from reducing that which your graph would chart... thus your graph is illustrative of an artificial influence by governing forces and deciely NOT illustrative of Consumer demand.

Now reason suggest that IF demand was growing when FDR took power that there woul be no reason for FDR to have implemented policy which was desgned to counter-act falling demand... For instance... why would FDR implement policy that forbid the reduction in the price of food or other consumer goods, >>>> IF<<<< demand for those goods were high or on the rise?

The fact is demand was low and falling and in response, FDR implemented those policies to prevent soft demand from undermining the prices... which would have caused further DEFLATION; inevitably of course those FDR left-think policies prolonged the depression and inevitably caused another major economic recession within the DEPRESSION... in 37-38... Your graph merely charts the reponse to those policies which prevented STASTISTICAL DEFLATION... which would be reflected in a falling GDP... Sadly, you being a moron are simply not bright enough to recognize that simple, but wholly incontestable fact. Perhaps someday someone will put it on WIKI and you'll be able to trust it...

 

[Zoomie1980]

I never said demand was "just fine." What I said, in fact what I showed was that GDP began rising in 1933, which is evidence that demand did not collapse as you argued. There is a huge difference. You are saying that FDR caused the Depression. This is simply wrong. GDP turned up a few months after FDR took office. Almost all of the decline in production occurred under Hoover. You might make an argument that the New Deal did not do much to cure the Depression. That may be. I tend to think that liberals put too much stock in the New Deal and that much of the end of the recession was due to prices finally clearing across the economy. But I am not making an ideological argument. I am making an empirical argument. And what we know is that GDP turned upward a few months after FDR came to office. Thus, it is simply dead wrong to say that FDR caused the recession. You want to talk about his second term? Fine. I might agree with you. Raising taxes and balancing a budget during a weak economy is bad policy, not to mention his ridiculous anti-business rhetoric. But that is far different than FDR causing the Depression.

As for the argument of demand versus production, GDP = C + I + G + NX.

I'm of the camp FDR certainly did NOT cause the depression, but the New Deal did very little to cure it. We briefly got a lull in the Depression because of WWII but went right back into it in the fall '45. The rise of the Soviet Union and the establishment of a pseudo permanent "military-industrial complex" and it's associated side effects of technology advancement (NASA was nothing more than another facet of the arms-race) is what really "cured" the Depression.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Have you ever taken an economics class or read an economics text? It seems pretty clear that you don't even understand basic economics and thus are in no position to be able to determine what is sound economic logic and what is not. You cannot even determine what sources are good and what are not.

FTR... this argument is wholly fallacious. Would ya care to tell the board what form of fallacy this argument represents as it fails to meet the minimal standard of sound reasoning?

 

[Toro]

But that is not a graph which charts demand... it is a graph which charts PRODUCTION...

No! It charts consumption! Look at the bloody title!

It says "Personal Consumption Expenditures." That is consumption.

Go to the site. They have thousands of charts. Do it yourself.

you being a moron are simply not bright enough to recognize that simple, but wholly incontestable fact.

Must be embarrassing for an unintelligent moron such as myself to point out to such a smart guy like yourself that your argument is based around a graph you cannot even properly.

 

[Toro]

FTR... this argument is wholly fallacious. Would ya care to tell the board what form of fallacy this argument represents as it fails to meet the minimal standard of sound reasoning?

You can't read charts.

You disparage charts, which are merely the graphical representation of data.

You don't understand the components of GDP.

You get your timelines all wrong.

You think Wikipedia is a dubious source because it has the components of GDP. Otherwise, you think the St Louis Fed is a dubious source and/or you think the National Bureau of Economic Research is a dubious source.

You don't understand the relationship between production, income and demand.

And so on.

I'm off to bed. This argument is getting tiresome.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

No! It charts consumption! Look at the bloody title!

It says "Personal Consumption Expenditures." That is consumption.

Go to the site. They have thousands of charts. Do it yourself.



Must be embarrassing for an unintelligent moron such as myself to point out to such a smart guy like yourself that your argument is based around a graph you cannot even properly.

Golly... consumption... Well I guess that says it all... I mean there it is 'consumption'... on an ever increasing rise... from dead freakin' BOTTOM... until it falls... then rises again... YEP!

Of course it doesn't say what it is charting, does it? So there's no way to know what it actually means... I mean it could be a chart of corn sales... people gotta eat. Yet FDR destroyed tens of millions of acres of corn and we know that wasn't because of high demand... I mean given that people were standing in soup lines a mile long and did well in some letist controlled uban centers to get one meal day. So a graph which is labeled consumption without any underlying data isn't much evidence of anything... except your propensity to misuse statistics.

 

[mash107]

Should chill a bit, PI.

If demand is coming from the government, and money certainly doesn't come from nowhere, isn't that just redistributing where the consumption is happening? Since you're either borrowing, taxing or printing for all government spending, isn't that just taking money away from the consumer, and just consuming on behalf of the government, netting no true net gain in aggregate demand? Or much worse, isn't that taking away from capital that would have been saved and invested in production.. and since production = income, aren't Keynesians, like FDR, taking away from our productivity or income in the long run, for a short term boost in GDP? It's more likely than not a combination of the two, and that's definitely why, despite Bush's tax cuts, we had not seen any spur in economic growth. The money was being siphoned away on the Iraq war. It's like the government said, "Here, have some money back.... oh wait, can I borrow that money back, and some more, for the Iraq war? I'll pay you back, promise!"

Again, one can't see, empirically, what and how severe these opportunity costs would be, but if one studies the inefficiency that reigns supreme in government (DoD, Fema, TVA, etc), one can safely conclude the money would be better off in the hands of the people, if time after time government just fails at doing anything efficiently.

I'm not saying FDR caused the Depression; he just didn't allow the economy to recover as efficiently as it would with the free market. The bottom line, though, is that economists today should not be repeating FDR's experiment that resulted in a longer depression than otherwise.

You actually are making an argument liberals make. Liberals argue that what matters is the distribution of income, and how the average person does. Conservatives do not.

So be it.. I'm not going to harp on whether one calls me liberal or conservative, it's the freedom of markets I'm an advocate for. My contention is that by harming productivity of the private markets in any way, you're hurting the average person's income, since production = income. Free markets see to it that the distribution of income is always fair. It's when Hoover messed with this that trouble began.

FYI, I hadn't studied macroecon in college, tbh, just microecon. It might've been my life's calling instead of engineering. All in all, enjoyable debates!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You can't read charts.

You disparage charts, which are merely the graphical representation of data.

You don't understand the components of GDP.

You get your timelines all wrong.

You think Wikipedia is a dubious source because it has the components of GDP. Otherwise, you think the St Louis Fed is a dubious source and/or you think the National Bureau of Economic Research is a dubious source.

You don't understand the relationship between production, income and demand.

And so on.

I'm off to bed. This argument is getting tiresome.

ROFLMNAO... So you can't cite the specific fallacy to which your reasoning succumbed? LOL... SHOCKING! Which begs the question: "what color is the sky in your world?"

I reject your graphs as you misrepresent the meaning of those graphs... I've laid out my reasoning time and again and your only response amounts to "nunht UH!"

As evidence of this YOU"VE BEEN DIRECTLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY CHALLENGED TO PROVIDE A INTELLECTUALLY SOUND REASON FOR WHY A POLICY DESIGNED TO PROP UP FALLING DEMAND SUCH AS PRICE, WAGE AND PRODUCTION FREEZES WOULD BE NECESSARY WHERE DEMAND IS RISING... and you've failed to even address those demands, opting instead to re-post the same statstical misrepresentations via your sad little graphs...

Now Skippy... if you can't explain why FDR would institute policy designed to counteract soft demand in a period of rising demand... YOU FUCKING LOSE SIS! PERIOD. And it's no more complex than that... and the reason you lose is that you simply ignored numerous warnings that sustained flight was at risk and failed to make critical correction to flight attitude,resulting in critical loss of altitude... meaning simply that you CRASHED AND FUCKING BURNED.