New Deal Quiz

[Oddball]

WWII provided a temporary jobs program, but FDR and Truman were concerned about the country going into a deep recession after the war ended. Truman proposed New Deal II to Congress, which rejected it in favor of TAX CUTs.

Growth ignited. That's what happens when government shrinks and more money is left in the private sector to invest instead of the government spreading it around.

It's also what happens when you're the only nation left with any appreciable industrial capacity.

 

[onecut39]

The massive government spending program also known as WWII ended the Great Depression.

No, it didn't...Not directly anyways.

The war years were a time of shortages, rationing, inflation gone wild, nonexistent upward mobility, production and consumption of consumer goods that barely charted, etcetera.

Now, if you want to claim that wiping out the industrial capacity economic competitors and snuffing out millions of lives is a worthy means to "economic stimulus", we have more problems on our hands that mere misunderstanding of economics.

War and war production are just another form of government spending. You may like the results you or may not but it doesn't change anything.

I would surely like to know how the "industrial capacity of competitors" wiped out.

It is difficult for the modern conservative to understand but WWll was not a Korea or a Vietnam. There was a real possibility we could lose and that loss would mean more than a loss of prestige. It was all out, make it or break it.

Everything was diverted to the war effort. The modern conservative would have gone crazy when war profiteering was banned. I mean wow, isn't that unconstitutional or something?

Enoough fun..
Price Controls and the Standard of Living

Fiscal and financial matters were also addressed by other federal agencies. For instance, the Office of Price Administration used its "General Maximum Price Regulation" (also known as "General Max") to attempt to curtail inflation by maintaining prices at their March 1942 levels. In July, the National War Labor Board (NWLB; a successor to a New Deal-era body) limited wartime wage increases to about 15 percent, the factor by which the cost of living rose from January 1941 to May 1942. Neither "General Max" nor the wage-increase limit was entirely successful, though federal efforts did curtail inflation. Between April 1942 and June 1946, the period of the most stringent federal controls on inflation, the annual rate of inflation was just 3.5 percent; the annual rate had been 10.3 percent in the six months before April 1942 and it soared to 28.0 percent in the six months after June 1946 (Rockoff, "Price and Wage Controls in Four Wartime Periods," 382).With wages rising about 65 percent over the course of the war, this limited success in cutting the rate of inflation meant that many American civilians enjoyed a stable or even improving quality of life during the war (Kennedy, 641). Improvement in the standard of living was not ubiquitous, however. In some regions, such as rural areas in the Deep South, living standards stagnated or even declined, and according to some economists, the national living standard barely stayed level or even declined (Higgs, 1992).

 

[regent]

Yes, now the evidence is overwhelming that FDR did not spend enough on his attempts to pump money into the economy. FDR needed to have war-time spending to end the depression.

Are you enjoying just making stuff up?

Please show us the "evidence that is overwhelming." Economic historians have been moving away from the "WWII got us out of the GD" for years.

Can you post some of that "overwhelming evidence?"

Or do you just make stuff up?

The overwhelming evidence is found on these boards written by conservatives. They write that it was not FDR that got us out of the depression it was World War II. But you're right I assumed it was WWII spending they meant. So was it something else in WWII that cured the depression besides the spending, K rations, Jeeps, what? What did the economic historians come up with besides spending?

 

[Oddball]

The massive government spending program also known as WWII ended the Great Depression.

No, it didn't...Not directly anyways.

The war years were a time of shortages, rationing, inflation gone wild, nonexistent upward mobility, production and consumption of consumer goods that barely charted, etcetera.

Now, if you want to claim that wiping out the industrial capacity economic competitors and snuffing out millions of lives is a worthy means to "economic stimulus", we have more problems on our hands that mere misunderstanding of economics.

War and war production are just another form of government spending. You may like the results you or may not but it doesn't change anything.

I would surely like to know how the "industrial capacity of competitors" wiped out.

It is difficult for the modern conservative to understand but WWll was not a Korea or a Vietnam. There was a real possibility we could lose and that loss would mean more than a loss of prestige. It was all out, make it or break it.

Everything was diverted to the war effort. The modern conservative would have gone crazy when war profiteering was banned. I mean wow, isn't that unconstitutional or something?

Enoough fun..
Price Controls and the Standard of Living

Fiscal and financial matters were also addressed by other federal agencies. For instance, the Office of Price Administration used its "General Maximum Price Regulation" (also known as "General Max") to attempt to curtail inflation by maintaining prices at their March 1942 levels. In July, the National War Labor Board (NWLB; a successor to a New Deal-era body) limited wartime wage increases to about 15 percent, the factor by which the cost of living rose from January 1941 to May 1942. Neither "General Max" nor the wage-increase limit was entirely successful, though federal efforts did curtail inflation. Between April 1942 and June 1946, the period of the most stringent federal controls on inflation, the annual rate of inflation was just 3.5 percent; the annual rate had been 10.3 percent in the six months before April 1942 and it soared to 28.0 percent in the six months after June 1946 (Rockoff, "Price and Wage Controls in Four Wartime Periods," 382).With wages rising about 65 percent over the course of the war, this limited success in cutting the rate of inflation meant that many American civilians enjoyed a stable or even improving quality of life during the war (Kennedy, 641). Improvement in the standard of living was not ubiquitous, however. In some regions, such as rural areas in the Deep South, living standards stagnated or even declined, and according to some economists, the national living standard barely stayed level or even declined (Higgs, 1992).

War profiteering was banned?...I'm sure that Chance Vought, Anderew Higgins, Boeing, Grumman, Ford, GM, Douglas, et.al, all lost their shirts.

And if you're going to claim the mantle of "economic stimulator" by laying waste to entire nations and destroying the lives of millions, you're more screwed up a little monkey than I had already imagined...Which is saying something.

 

[ccravens]

Yes, now the evidence is overwhelming that FDR did not spend enough on his attempts to pump money into the economy. FDR needed to have war-time spending to end the depression.

Are you enjoying just making stuff up?

Please show us the "evidence that is overwhelming." Economic historians have been moving away from the "WWII got us out of the GD" for years.

Can you post some of that "overwhelming evidence?"

Or do you just make stuff up?

The overwhelming evidence is found on these boards written by conservatives. They write that it was not FDR that got us out of the depression it was World War II. But you're right I assumed it was WWII spending they meant. So was it something else in WWII that cured the depression besides the spending, K rations, Jeeps, what? What did the economic historians come up with besides spending?

What they have "come up with" is as follows:

1. It is hard to think of a depression or economic problems as being "over" when you have shortages, rationing, price and wage controls, a third of your workforce being conscripted, many workers being killed, etc. As a previous poster said, to consider that a good thing would be stupid.

To claim, as onecut has, that "War and war production are just another form of government spending. You may like the results you or may not but it doesn't change anything" is beyond comprehension. As would proposing that we get out of all recessions by going to war.


2. It was not WWII, but government getting OUT of the economy after the war, and the economy operating without government interference (the New Deal; the WWII policies in point #1) that portrayed the start of economic growth again.


BTW, you never gave any of the "overwhelming evidence" you claimed to have. Fire away with it!

 

[onecut39]

Which response to Fascism would that be, turning the MS St. Louis away? Interring Japanese Americans in camps? Admiring "Uncle Joe" for controlling the Soviet economy and wanting to emulate him here?

Did you know the very phrase "New Deal" comes from a Stalin worshiping US Marxist?

Reading your posts bring forth a number of responses. There is mirth because your premises are so hilarious. It is painful to think a voting adult could harbor so many misconceptions. There is embarrassment for you in that you don't seem to realize your ignorance. There is disgust in that you may not be ignorant at all but simply a liar.

I mentioned 4 things:

1. US turned back the MS St Louis
2. FDR interred Japanese Americans
3. FDR Administration admired Soviet control of the economy and tried to emulate it here
4. The phrase "New Deal" comes from a Fabian Society US Marxist (Samuel Chase)

Tell me, in your own words, where'd I go wrong?

You go wrong in not considering the events and moods of the times. Things happen for reasons and to reduce them to political talking points 50 years later to make a partisan point is regrettable.

Both the St Louis and the Japanese internment can now be dismissed as anything from callous to treasonable depending on the how one wants to spin the action and spin it is. If you want to talk about the events themselves and what led up to those events and who made the decisions. Fine, let's do it.

The simple answer to both events is that they were wrong. Not treasonous, not anti Semitic, simply wrong. In the light of events happening at the time and the mood of the people they both are understandable. There was no treason, no malfeasance. As the saying goes, "It seemed like a good idea at at the time".

If you think WWll could have been won without the government taking over the economy, directing production and consumption there is only one thing to say. You are nuts! The thing that is instructive would be how fast it returned to civilian control after the war.

To attribute a phrase as indication of the whole administration being under communist control is, well, the word nuts comes again to mind.

 

[Oddball]

Are you enjoying just making stuff up?

Please show us the "evidence that is overwhelming." Economic historians have been moving away from the "WWII got us out of the GD" for years.

Can you post some of that "overwhelming evidence?"

Or do you just make stuff up?

The overwhelming evidence is found on these boards written by conservatives. They write that it was not FDR that got us out of the depression it was World War II. But you're right I assumed it was WWII spending they meant. So was it something else in WWII that cured the depression besides the spending, K rations, Jeeps, what? What did the economic historians come up with besides spending?

What they have "come up with" is as follows:

1. It is hard to think of a depression or economic problems as being "over" when you have shortages, rationing, price and wage controls, a third of your workforce being conscripted, many workers being killed, etc. As a previous poster said, to consider that a good thing would be stupid.

To claim, as onecut has, that "War and war production are just another form of government spending. You may like the results you or may not but it doesn't change anything" is beyond comprehension. As would proposing that we get out of all recessions by going to war.


2. It was not WWII, but government getting OUT of the economy after the war, and the economy operating without government interference (the New Deal; the WWII policies in point #1) that portrayed the start of economic growth again.


BTW, you never gave any of the "overwhelming evidence" you claimed to have. Fire away with it!

Yeah...Overwhelming evidence of death, disease, pestilence, starvation and general privation of the entire globe, all so you can claim to be great economic alchemists and borderline demigods.


What is obviously eluding the grasp of you two economic pifflewits are the aforementioned negative extrnalities of your "economic stimulus"....Further underscoring the fact that you don't give a hoot in hell who gets crushed under the boot of your fascistic progressive Utopia, as long as you can claim to have benefited someone.

 

[onecut39]

Are you enjoying just making stuff up?

Please show us the "evidence that is overwhelming." Economic historians have been moving away from the "WWII got us out of the GD" for years.

Can you post some of that "overwhelming evidence?"

Or do you just make stuff up?

The overwhelming evidence is found on these boards written by conservatives. They write that it was not FDR that got us out of the depression it was World War II. But you're right I assumed it was WWII spending they meant. So was it something else in WWII that cured the depression besides the spending, K rations, Jeeps, what? What did the economic historians come up with besides spending?

What they have "come up with" is as follows:

1. It is hard to think of a depression or economic problems as being "over" when you have shortages, rationing, price and wage controls, a third of your workforce being conscripted, many workers being killed, etc. As a previous poster said, to consider that a good thing would be stupid.

To claim, as onecut has, that "War and war production are just another form of government spending. You may like the results you or may not but it doesn't change anything" is beyond comprehension. As would proposing that we get out of all recessions by going to war.


2. It was not WWII, but government getting OUT of the economy after the war, and the economy operating without government interference (the New Deal; the WWII policies in point #1) that portrayed the start of economic growth again.


BTW, you never gave any of the "overwhelming evidence" you claimed to have. Fire away with it!

1. No one ever said war is a good thing. You lied about that. WWll was a time of full production and full employment. No one was starving for lack of a job. To try to spin that as a recession is..............nuts. No one proposed we use war as a means to get out of a recession. That was a lie. Historically speaking, in the days before we outsourced most of our defense spending, defense spending (and war) did lead to prosperity at home. Think Korea, think Vietnam. Regrettable but nevertheless true.

2. When the government "got out" of the economy after WWll there was a tremendous pent up demand for goods. Remember there were virtually no new consumer goods produced for about four years. No cars no washing machines, no farm equipment no nothing THAT triggered the economic boom and the resulting inflation.

 

[regent]

Are you enjoying just making stuff up?

Please show us the "evidence that is overwhelming." Economic historians have been moving away from the "WWII got us out of the GD" for years.

Can you post some of that "overwhelming evidence?"

Or do you just make stuff up?

The overwhelming evidence is found on these boards written by conservatives. They write that it was not FDR that got us out of the depression it was World War II. But you're right I assumed it was WWII spending they meant. So was it something else in WWII that cured the depression besides the spending, K rations, Jeeps, what? What did the economic historians come up with besides spending?

What they have "come up with" is as follows:

1. It is hard to think of a depression or economic problems as being "over" when you have shortages, rationing, price and wage controls, a third of your workforce being conscripted, many workers being killed, etc. As a previous poster said, to consider that a good thing would be stupid.

To claim, as onecut has, that "War and war production are just another form of government spending. You may like the results you or may not but it doesn't change anything" is beyond comprehension. As would proposing that we get out of all recessions by going to war.


2. It was not WWII, but government getting OUT of the economy after the war, and the economy operating without government interference (the New Deal; the WWII policies in point #1) that portrayed the start of economic growth again.


BTW, you never gave any of the "overwhelming evidence" you claimed to have. Fire away with it!

The government never got out of the economy after WWII. Government was involved in the economy almost as soon as George Washington took office and has never been out of the economy since. And it certainly never left the economy after WWII. Republicans even wanted to impeach Truman for taking over the steel mills.
I gave you the overwhelming evidence: the conservative poster claims on these boards that it was WWII that ended the depression. A little sarcasm. Do you know when FDR ended the New Deal, why he ended it, and what happened as a result of the ending?
Of course, even after FDR ended the New Deal, a large number of FDR's policies remain, Social Security, SEC, FDIC and so on.

 

[Oddball]

The overwhelming evidence is found on these boards written by conservatives. They write that it was not FDR that got us out of the depression it was World War II. But you're right I assumed it was WWII spending they meant. So was it something else in WWII that cured the depression besides the spending, K rations, Jeeps, what? What did the economic historians come up with besides spending?

What they have "come up with" is as follows:

1. It is hard to think of a depression or economic problems as being "over" when you have shortages, rationing, price and wage controls, a third of your workforce being conscripted, many workers being killed, etc. As a previous poster said, to consider that a good thing would be stupid.

To claim, as onecut has, that "War and war production are just another form of government spending. You may like the results you or may not but it doesn't change anything" is beyond comprehension. As would proposing that we get out of all recessions by going to war.


2. It was not WWII, but government getting OUT of the economy after the war, and the economy operating without government interference (the New Deal; the WWII policies in point #1) that portrayed the start of economic growth again.


BTW, you never gave any of the "overwhelming evidence" you claimed to have. Fire away with it!

1. No one ever said war is a good thing. You lied about that. WWll was a time of full production and full employment. No one was starving for lack of a job. To try to spin that as a recession is..............nuts. No one proposed we use war as a means to get out of a recession. That was a lie. Historically speaking, in the days before we outsourced most of our defense spending, defense spending (and war) did lead to prosperity at home. Think Korea, think Vietnam. Regrettable but nevertheless true.

2. When the government "got out" of the economy after WWll there was a tremendous pent up demand for goods. Remember there were virtually no new consumer goods produced for about four years. No cars no washing machines, no farm equipment no nothing THAT triggered the economic boom and the resulting inflation.

What's being claimed is that progressive/socialist economic alchemists like you refuse to acknowledge the negative repercussions of your meddling.

What's also being pointed out that your mythical "pent up demand" leading to the economic boom of the 50s was in large part to the fact that nobody else in the world had the kind the industrial capacity as did the U.S., as much of that outside America had been destroyed in the war.

As per usual, the Keynesian witch doctors love visible beneficiaries and invisible casualties.

 

[onecut39]

What they have "come up with" is as follows:

1. It is hard to think of a depression or economic problems as being "over" when you have shortages, rationing, price and wage controls, a third of your workforce being conscripted, many workers being killed, etc. As a previous poster said, to consider that a good thing would be stupid.

To claim, as onecut has, that "War and war production are just another form of government spending. You may like the results you or may not but it doesn't change anything" is beyond comprehension. As would proposing that we get out of all recessions by going to war.


2. It was not WWII, but government getting OUT of the economy after the war, and the economy operating without government interference (the New Deal; the WWII policies in point #1) that portrayed the start of economic growth again.


BTW, you never gave any of the "overwhelming evidence" you claimed to have. Fire away with it!

1. No one ever said war is a good thing. You lied about that. WWll was a time of full production and full employment. No one was starving for lack of a job. To try to spin that as a recession is..............nuts. No one proposed we use war as a means to get out of a recession. That was a lie. Historically speaking, in the days before we outsourced most of our defense spending, defense spending (and war) did lead to prosperity at home. Think Korea, think Vietnam. Regrettable but nevertheless true.

2. When the government "got out" of the economy after WWll there was a tremendous pent up demand for goods. Remember there were virtually no new consumer goods produced for about four years. No cars no washing machines, no farm equipment no nothing THAT triggered the economic boom and the resulting inflation.

What's being claimed is that progressive/socialist economic alchemists like you refuse to acknowledge the negative repercussions of your meddling.

What's also being pointed out that your mythical "pent up demand" leading to the economic boom of the 50s was in large part to the fact that nobody else in the world had the kind the industrial capacity as did the U.S., as much of that outside America had been destroyed in the war.

As per usual, the Keynesian witch doctors love visible beneficiaries and invisible casualties.

The conservative mind is a tricky thing. First you deny a pent up consumer demand. You being the only one in the country to do so. Then you point to the demand caused by the destruction of Europe.

Does not that destruction of European industrial capacity and the inability of Europe's production to supply even local demand also meet the definition of "pent up demand"?

LOL!

 

[ShackledNation]

None of the answers are correct. The New Deal did not end the Depression, but neither did WWII.