Roosevelt: His Bankrupt Policies

[JakeStarkey]

Frank happily ignores that conservative polices go into the Depression drove the depression particulary when economically they were followed after 1936.

Jake, ever the Progressive First Responder sees imaginary "Conservative principles" in FDR's New Deal Jihad on the US economy

Check the legislation in 1937 and 1938. You better get their first.

 

[Rshermr]

Only you are saying FDR's policies were a total failure. You can have your opinion, but it is wrong.

You're claiming that a 20% unemployment rate over 7 whole years is a success?

Average rate of unemployment
in 1933: 24.9%
in 1934: 21.7%
in 1935: 20.1%
in 1936: 16.9%
in 1937: 14.3%
in 1938: 19.0%
in 1939: 17.2%
in 1940: 14.5%

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -- John Adams

16.8%
Facts are stubborn things if you do not change the numbers. And lie. Like you do, CR. Lets add to your table the actual numbers, eh?

Average rate of Actual Unemployment
unemployment Per CF Rate
in 1929 ------ 3.14%
in 1933: 24.9% 24.75%
in 1934: 21.7% 21.6%
in 1935: 20.1% 19.97%
in 1936: 16.9% 16.8%
in 1937: 14.3% 14.18%
in 1938: 19.0% 18.91%
in 1939: 17.2% 17.05%
in 1940: 14.5% 14.45%
in 1941 ------- 9.66%
in 1942 -------- 4.7%
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html

So, crusader, WWII started in the end of 1941, but the war effects were primarily from 1942 on. Now, three facts you conveniently forgot.
First, The ue rate in 1929 was 3.14%. By 1933, just over 4 years later, with NO INTERVENTION, the ue rate went to 24.75%. That would be, if you could count, a raise of 22%. Which was the fastest and greatest raise in the ue rate EVER. EVER. Using those great republican principles of The Invisible Hand. And human suffering was immense. There is a reason the hand is invisible.
Second, From 1933 to 1941 the ue rate dropped to 9.66%, or 15.5% in 8 years. The fastest decline in the ue rate in the HISTORY OF THE US. All with extreme government intervention.
Third, in 1937 increased republican pressure, as they controlled congress again, caused FDR to back off stimulus spending, and by 1937 the nation paid the cost with a one year increase of nearly 5% in the ue rate. In 1937 FDR again increased stimulus spending and the decrease in the ue rate continued again.

Really, me boy, lying is bad form.

 

[Rshermr]

Frank happily ignores that conservative polices go into the Depression drove the depression particulary when economically they were followed after 1936.

Jake, ever the Progressive First Responder sees imaginary "Conservative principles" in FDR's New Deal Jihad on the US economy

Check the legislation in 1937 and 1938. You better get their first.

As all rational people know, and well over 98% of all economists know, the Jihad was by the republicans in 1929 and up through 1933. Thereafter things improved. You need to check the dictionary, CF. Look at decline and improve. You wuld have to be brain dead to miss it. Or a con troll, eh, CF.

 

[Friends]

After his inauguration Roosevelt realized that his first priority was to reduce unemployment, and that some of the promises in the 1932 Democrat Party platform would detract from that.

Because the private sector was not hiring Roosevelt expanded government employment with policies like the Civilian Conservation Corps. CCC was popular with Democrats and Republicans.

During Roosevelt's first term there was nearly as much economic growth as there was during the terms of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. There was considerably more job creation.

Life for most Americans began to improve soon after Roosevelt's 1933 inauguration. That is why he was reelected three times, and why reactionaries in the Republican Party have never been able to repeal the main reforms of the New Deal.

Lol.

And that unemployment averaged 20% from the FDR inauguration until Hitler conquered France is just revisionist history, right.

Pesky facts spoiling the fictional narrative

Military spending and employment is government spending and employment. During the Roosevelt administration the U.S,A. taxed and spent its way to prosperity.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Only you are saying FDR's policies were a total failure. You can have your opinion, but it is wrong.

You're claiming that a 20% unemployment rate over 7 whole years is a success?

Average rate of unemployment
in 1933: 24.9%
in 1934: 21.7%
in 1935: 20.1%
in 1936: 16.9%
in 1937: 14.3%
in 1938: 19.0%
in 1939: 17.2%
in 1940: 14.5%

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -- John Adams

16.8%
Facts are stubborn things if you do not change the numbers. And lie. Like you do, CR. Lets add to your table the actual numbers, eh?

Average rate of Actual Unemployment
unemployment Per CF Rate
in 1929 ------ 3.14%
in 1933: 24.9% 24.75%
in 1934: 21.7% 21.6%
in 1935: 20.1% 19.97%
in 1936: 16.9% 16.8%
in 1937: 14.3% 14.18%
in 1938: 19.0% 18.91%
in 1939: 17.2% 17.05%
in 1940: 14.5% 14.45%
in 1941 ------- 9.66%
in 1942 -------- 4.7%
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html

So, crusader, WWII started in the end of 1941, but the war effects were primarily from 1942 on. Now, three facts you conveniently forgot.
First, The ue rate in 1929 was 3.14%. By 1933, just over 4 years later, with NO INTERVENTION, the ue rate went to 24.75%. That would be, if you could count, a raise of 22%. Which was the fastest and greatest raise in the ue rate EVER. EVER. Using those great republican principles of The Invisible Hand. And human suffering was immense. There is a reason the hand is invisible.
Second, From 1933 to 1941 the ue rate dropped to 9.66%, or 15.5% in 8 years. The fastest decline in the ue rate in the HISTORY OF THE US. All with extreme government intervention.
Third, in 1937 increased republican pressure, as they controlled congress again, caused FDR to back off stimulus spending, and by 1937 the nation paid the cost with a one year increase of nearly 5% in the ue rate. In 1937 FDR again increased stimulus spending and the decrease in the ue rate continued again.

Really, me boy, lying is bad form.

Take the average from 1933 to 1940, see what that number is.

147.62/7=21%

That's FDR first 2 terms, 21% Average unemployment -- you're calling that a success?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only you are saying FDR's policies were a total failure. You can have your opinion, but it is wrong.

You're claiming that a 20% unemployment rate over 7 whole years is a success?

Average rate of unemployment
in 1933: 24.9%
in 1934: 21.7%
in 1935: 20.1%
in 1936: 16.9%
in 1937: 14.3%
in 1938: 19.0%
in 1939: 17.2%
in 1940: 14.5%

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -- John Adams

16.8%
Facts are stubborn things if you do not change the numbers. And lie. Like you do, CR. Lets add to your table the actual numbers, eh?

Average rate of Actual Unemployment
unemployment Per CF Rate
in 1929 ------ 3.14%
in 1933: 24.9% 24.75%
in 1934: 21.7% 21.6%
in 1935: 20.1% 19.97%
in 1936: 16.9% 16.8%
in 1937: 14.3% 14.18%
in 1938: 19.0% 18.91%
in 1939: 17.2% 17.05%
in 1940: 14.5% 14.45%
in 1941 ------- 9.66%
in 1942 -------- 4.7%
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html

So, crusader, WWII started in the end of 1941, but the war effects were primarily from 1942 on. Now, three facts you conveniently forgot.
First, The ue rate in 1929 was 3.14%. By 1933, just over 4 years later, with NO INTERVENTION, the ue rate went to 24.75%. That would be, if you could count, a raise of 22%. Which was the fastest and greatest raise in the ue rate EVER. EVER. Using those great republican principles of The Invisible Hand. And human suffering was immense. There is a reason the hand is invisible.
Second, From 1933 to 1941 the ue rate dropped to 9.66%, or 15.5% in 8 years. The fastest decline in the ue rate in the HISTORY OF THE US. All with extreme government intervention.
Third, in 1937 increased republican pressure, as they controlled congress again, caused FDR to back off stimulus spending, and by 1937 the nation paid the cost with a one year increase of nearly 5% in the ue rate. In 1937 FDR again increased stimulus spending and the decrease in the ue rate continued again.

Really, me boy, lying is bad form.

Take the average from 1933 to 1940, see what that number is.

147.62/7=21%

That's FDR first 2 terms, 21% Average unemployment -- you're calling that a success?

You continue to ignore the relief and reform that occurred during FDR's first two terms.

You continue to ignore the conservative economic legislation in 1936 that gutted the recovery until war preparations began for the US.

So, yes, you fail in analyzing why economic reform failed until to WWII.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Only you are saying FDR's policies were a total failure. You can have your opinion, but it is wrong.

You're claiming that a 20% unemployment rate over 7 whole years is a success?

Average rate of unemployment
in 1933: 24.9%
in 1934: 21.7%
in 1935: 20.1%
in 1936: 16.9%
in 1937: 14.3%
in 1938: 19.0%
in 1939: 17.2%
in 1940: 14.5%

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -- John Adams

16.8%
Facts are stubborn things if you do not change the numbers. And lie. Like you do, CR. Lets add to your table the actual numbers, eh?

Average rate of Actual Unemployment
unemployment Per CF Rate
in 1929 ------ 3.14%
in 1933: 24.9% 24.75%
in 1934: 21.7% 21.6%
in 1935: 20.1% 19.97%
in 1936: 16.9% 16.8%
in 1937: 14.3% 14.18%
in 1938: 19.0% 18.91%
in 1939: 17.2% 17.05%
in 1940: 14.5% 14.45%
in 1941 ------- 9.66%
in 1942 -------- 4.7%
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html

So, crusader, WWII started in the end of 1941, but the war effects were primarily from 1942 on. Now, three facts you conveniently forgot.
First, The ue rate in 1929 was 3.14%. By 1933, just over 4 years later, with NO INTERVENTION, the ue rate went to 24.75%. That would be, if you could count, a raise of 22%. Which was the fastest and greatest raise in the ue rate EVER. EVER. Using those great republican principles of The Invisible Hand. And human suffering was immense. There is a reason the hand is invisible.
Second, From 1933 to 1941 the ue rate dropped to 9.66%, or 15.5% in 8 years. The fastest decline in the ue rate in the HISTORY OF THE US. All with extreme government intervention.
Third, in 1937 increased republican pressure, as they controlled congress again, caused FDR to back off stimulus spending, and by 1937 the nation paid the cost with a one year increase of nearly 5% in the ue rate. In 1937 FDR again increased stimulus spending and the decrease in the ue rate continued again.

Really, me boy, lying is bad form.

Take the average from 1933 to 1940, see what that number is.

147.62/7=21%

That's FDR first 2 terms, 21% Average unemployment -- you're calling that a success?

You continue to ignore the relief and reform that occurred during FDR's first two terms.

You continue to ignore the conservative economic legislation in 1936 that gutted the recovery until war preparations began for the US.

So, yes, you fail in analyzing why economic reform failed until to WWII.

Translation: I don't like the numbers, so they must be wrong.

Jake, why did "conservative economic legislation " crush the 1920-1921 depression and drop unemployment from 12% down to 4 in under 2 years, yet fail so badly for Progressive Fascist FDR?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

After his inauguration Roosevelt realized that his first priority was to reduce unemployment, and that some of the promises in the 1932 Democrat Party platform would detract from that.

Because the private sector was not hiring Roosevelt expanded government employment with policies like the Civilian Conservation Corps. CCC was popular with Democrats and Republicans.

During Roosevelt's first term there was nearly as much economic growth as there was during the terms of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. There was considerably more job creation.

Life for most Americans began to improve soon after Roosevelt's 1933 inauguration. That is why he was reelected three times, and why reactionaries in the Republican Party have never been able to repeal the main reforms of the New Deal.

Lol.

And that unemployment averaged 20% from the FDR inauguration until Hitler conquered France is just revisionist history, right.

Pesky facts spoiling the fictional narrative

Military spending and employment is government spending and employment. During the Roosevelt administration the U.S,A. taxed and spent its way to prosperity.

Take the average from 1933 to 1940, see what that number is.

147.62/7=21%

That's FDR first 2 terms, 21% Average unemployment -- you're calling that "prosperity"?

****, why don't we just go to war 24/7/365?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Translation: I don't like the numbers, so they must be wrong.

Jake, why did "conservative economic legislation " crush the 1920-1921 depression and drop unemployment from 12% down to 4 in under 2 years, yet fail so badly for Progressive Fascist FDR?

(1) The American industries were retooling for consumer production, they had plenty of people to hire, and the resulting consumer driven economy crushed the recession.

(2) The opposite was the case from 1929 - 1940. No massive consumer demand existed. When legislation in 1936 and 1937 tightened the economy (exactly how Coolidge, Harding, or Hoover would have done it), the demand lessened as jobs were lost because inventories built up and industries were not able to compete. UE went up again because of the ultra right conservative dum dums in Congress.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Translation: I don't like the numbers, so they must be wrong.

Jake, why did "conservative economic legislation " crush the 1920-1921 depression and drop unemployment from 12% down to 4 in under 2 years, yet fail so badly for Progressive Fascist FDR?

(1) The American industries were retooling for consumer production, they had plenty of people to hire, and the resulting consumer driven economy crushed the recession.

(2) The opposite was the case from 1929 - 1940. No massive consumer demand existed. When legislation in 1936 and 1937 tightened the economy (exactly how Coolidge, Harding, or Hoover would have done it), the demand lessened as jobs were lost because inventories built up and industries were not able to compete. UE went up again because of the ultra right conservative dum dums in Congress.

Jake! You're oh so close!!

Correct, industries HAD to retool and reprice after WWI. The genius of Harding, Coolidge and Mellon was that they had the discipline and courage to stand aside and let labor, assets and debts reprice. The economy worked itself out and in under 2 years was booming. No federal interference, intervention or new departments or price controls.

How is it it was so successful in 1920-21 but an utter failure under FDR? Do you see what the difference was?

 

[Camp]

Only you are saying FDR's policies were a total failure. You can have your opinion, but it is wrong.

You're claiming that a 20% unemployment rate over 7 whole years is a success?

Average rate of unemployment
in 1933: 24.9%
in 1934: 21.7%
in 1935: 20.1%
in 1936: 16.9%
in 1937: 14.3%
in 1938: 19.0%
in 1939: 17.2%
in 1940: 14.5%

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -- John Adams

16.8%
Facts are stubborn things if you do not change the numbers. And lie. Like you do, CR. Lets add to your table the actual numbers, eh?

Average rate of Actual Unemployment
unemployment Per CF Rate
in 1929 ------ 3.14%
in 1933: 24.9% 24.75%
in 1934: 21.7% 21.6%
in 1935: 20.1% 19.97%
in 1936: 16.9% 16.8%
in 1937: 14.3% 14.18%
in 1938: 19.0% 18.91%
in 1939: 17.2% 17.05%
in 1940: 14.5% 14.45%
in 1941 ------- 9.66%
in 1942 -------- 4.7%
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html

So, crusader, WWII started in the end of 1941, but the war effects were primarily from 1942 on. Now, three facts you conveniently forgot.
First, The ue rate in 1929 was 3.14%. By 1933, just over 4 years later, with NO INTERVENTION, the ue rate went to 24.75%. That would be, if you could count, a raise of 22%. Which was the fastest and greatest raise in the ue rate EVER. EVER. Using those great republican principles of The Invisible Hand. And human suffering was immense. There is a reason the hand is invisible.
Second, From 1933 to 1941 the ue rate dropped to 9.66%, or 15.5% in 8 years. The fastest decline in the ue rate in the HISTORY OF THE US. All with extreme government intervention.
Third, in 1937 increased republican pressure, as they controlled congress again, caused FDR to back off stimulus spending, and by 1937 the nation paid the cost with a one year increase of nearly 5% in the ue rate. In 1937 FDR again increased stimulus spending and the decrease in the ue rate continued again.

Really, me boy, lying is bad form.

Take the average from 1933 to 1940, see what that number is.

147.62/7=21%

That's FDR first 2 terms, 21% Average unemployment -- you're calling that a success?

You continue to ignore the relief and reform that occurred during FDR's first two terms.

You continue to ignore the conservative economic legislation in 1936 that gutted the recovery until war preparations began for the US.

So, yes, you fail in analyzing why economic reform failed until to WWII.

The anti-FDR/anti-New Deal folks continue to use distorted unemployment numbers, despite more accurate numbers having been established over 40 years ago that incorporated people who worked and collected paychecks while employed in government-funded programs and projects that built infrastructure. When the realistic and accurate numbers that show real overall unemployment are used, employment figures move approximately 5% into the positive, or lower numbers. They account for the three and a half to four million workers who were in the New Deal work programs.

Easy to understand and quick read that explains why anti-FDR folks like to use outdated and distorted unemployment numbers. Graphs included in this link.
edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/very-short-reading-list-unemployment-in-the-1930s/

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Only you are saying FDR's policies were a total failure. You can have your opinion, but it is wrong.

You're claiming that a 20% unemployment rate over 7 whole years is a success?

Average rate of unemployment
in 1933: 24.9%
in 1934: 21.7%
in 1935: 20.1%
in 1936: 16.9%
in 1937: 14.3%
in 1938: 19.0%
in 1939: 17.2%
in 1940: 14.5%

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -- John Adams

16.8%
Facts are stubborn things if you do not change the numbers. And lie. Like you do, CR. Lets add to your table the actual numbers, eh?

Average rate of Actual Unemployment
unemployment Per CF Rate
in 1929 ------ 3.14%
in 1933: 24.9% 24.75%
in 1934: 21.7% 21.6%
in 1935: 20.1% 19.97%
in 1936: 16.9% 16.8%
in 1937: 14.3% 14.18%
in 1938: 19.0% 18.91%
in 1939: 17.2% 17.05%
in 1940: 14.5% 14.45%
in 1941 ------- 9.66%
in 1942 -------- 4.7%
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html

So, crusader, WWII started in the end of 1941, but the war effects were primarily from 1942 on. Now, three facts you conveniently forgot.
First, The ue rate in 1929 was 3.14%. By 1933, just over 4 years later, with NO INTERVENTION, the ue rate went to 24.75%. That would be, if you could count, a raise of 22%. Which was the fastest and greatest raise in the ue rate EVER. EVER. Using those great republican principles of The Invisible Hand. And human suffering was immense. There is a reason the hand is invisible.
Second, From 1933 to 1941 the ue rate dropped to 9.66%, or 15.5% in 8 years. The fastest decline in the ue rate in the HISTORY OF THE US. All with extreme government intervention.
Third, in 1937 increased republican pressure, as they controlled congress again, caused FDR to back off stimulus spending, and by 1937 the nation paid the cost with a one year increase of nearly 5% in the ue rate. In 1937 FDR again increased stimulus spending and the decrease in the ue rate continued again.

Really, me boy, lying is bad form.

Take the average from 1933 to 1940, see what that number is.

147.62/7=21%

That's FDR first 2 terms, 21% Average unemployment -- you're calling that a success?

You continue to ignore the relief and reform that occurred during FDR's first two terms.

You continue to ignore the conservative economic legislation in 1936 that gutted the recovery until war preparations began for the US.

So, yes, you fail in analyzing why economic reform failed until to WWII.

The anti-FDR/anti-New Deal folks continue to use distorted unemployment numbers, despite more accurate numbers having been established over 40 years ago that incorporated people who worked and collected paychecks while employed in government-funded programs and projects that built infrastructure. When the realistic and accurate numbers that show real overall unemployment are used, employment figures move approximately 5% into the positive, or lower numbers. They account for the three and a half to four million workers who were in the New Deal work programs.

Easy to understand and quick read that explains why anti-FDR folks like to use outdated and distorted unemployment numbers. Graphs included in this link.
edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/very-short-reading-list-unemployment-in-the-1930s/

OK, I'll give you that.

So, FDR spent $3 Trillion and managed to have average 16% unemployment over 7 years.

That's a success?

 

[Rshermr]

You're claiming that a 20% unemployment rate over 7 whole years is a success?

Average rate of unemployment
in 1933: 24.9%
in 1934: 21.7%
in 1935: 20.1%
in 1936: 16.9%
in 1937: 14.3%
in 1938: 19.0%
in 1939: 17.2%
in 1940: 14.5%

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -- John Adams

16.8%
Facts are stubborn things if you do not change the numbers. And lie. Like you do, CR. Lets add to your table the actual numbers, eh?

Average rate of Actual Unemployment
unemployment Per CF Rate
in 1929 ------ 3.14%
in 1933: 24.9% 24.75%
in 1934: 21.7% 21.6%
in 1935: 20.1% 19.97%
in 1936: 16.9% 16.8%
in 1937: 14.3% 14.18%
in 1938: 19.0% 18.91%
in 1939: 17.2% 17.05%
in 1940: 14.5% 14.45%
in 1941 ------- 9.66%
in 1942 -------- 4.7%
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html

So, crusader, WWII started in the end of 1941, but the war effects were primarily from 1942 on. Now, three facts you conveniently forgot.
First, The ue rate in 1929 was 3.14%. By 1933, just over 4 years later, with NO INTERVENTION, the ue rate went to 24.75%. That would be, if you could count, a raise of 22%. Which was the fastest and greatest raise in the ue rate EVER. EVER. Using those great republican principles of The Invisible Hand. And human suffering was immense. There is a reason the hand is invisible.
Second, From 1933 to 1941 the ue rate dropped to 9.66%, or 15.5% in 8 years. The fastest decline in the ue rate in the HISTORY OF THE US. All with extreme government intervention.
Third, in 1937 increased republican pressure, as they controlled congress again, caused FDR to back off stimulus spending, and by 1937 the nation paid the cost with a one year increase of nearly 5% in the ue rate. In 1937 FDR again increased stimulus spending and the decrease in the ue rate continued again.

Really, me boy, lying is bad form.

Take the average from 1933 to 1940, see what that number is.

147.62/7=21%

That's FDR first 2 terms, 21% Average unemployment -- you're calling that a success?

You continue to ignore the relief and reform that occurred during FDR's first two terms.

You continue to ignore the conservative economic legislation in 1936 that gutted the recovery until war preparations began for the US.

So, yes, you fail in analyzing why economic reform failed until to WWII.

The anti-FDR/anti-New Deal folks continue to use distorted unemployment numbers, despite more accurate numbers having been established over 40 years ago that incorporated people who worked and collected paychecks while employed in government-funded programs and projects that built infrastructure. When the realistic and accurate numbers that show real overall unemployment are used, employment figures move approximately 5% into the positive, or lower numbers. They account for the three and a half to four million workers who were in the New Deal work programs.

Easy to understand and quick read that explains why anti-FDR folks like to use outdated and distorted unemployment numbers. Graphs included in this link.
edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/very-short-reading-list-unemployment-in-the-1930s/

[/QUOTE]
OK, I'll give you that.

So, FDR spent $3 Trillion and managed to have average 16% unemployment over 7 years.

That's a success?
Without FDR"s actions, the ue rate was at 25%. That's success? With his efforts, the ue rate dropped to 9.5% by 1941. That is success. By any measure.
From 1929 to 1933, the ue rate moved from 3% to almost 25%, which is apparently what cons call success. What do you think. That's success?

 

[Camp]

You're claiming that a 20% unemployment rate over 7 whole years is a success?

Average rate of unemployment
in 1933: 24.9%
in 1934: 21.7%
in 1935: 20.1%
in 1936: 16.9%
in 1937: 14.3%
in 1938: 19.0%
in 1939: 17.2%
in 1940: 14.5%

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -- John Adams

16.8%
Facts are stubborn things if you do not change the numbers. And lie. Like you do, CR. Lets add to your table the actual numbers, eh?

Average rate of Actual Unemployment
unemployment Per CF Rate
in 1929 ------ 3.14%
in 1933: 24.9% 24.75%
in 1934: 21.7% 21.6%
in 1935: 20.1% 19.97%
in 1936: 16.9% 16.8%
in 1937: 14.3% 14.18%
in 1938: 19.0% 18.91%
in 1939: 17.2% 17.05%
in 1940: 14.5% 14.45%
in 1941 ------- 9.66%
in 1942 -------- 4.7%
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html

So, crusader, WWII started in the end of 1941, but the war effects were primarily from 1942 on. Now, three facts you conveniently forgot.
First, The ue rate in 1929 was 3.14%. By 1933, just over 4 years later, with NO INTERVENTION, the ue rate went to 24.75%. That would be, if you could count, a raise of 22%. Which was the fastest and greatest raise in the ue rate EVER. EVER. Using those great republican principles of The Invisible Hand. And human suffering was immense. There is a reason the hand is invisible.
Second, From 1933 to 1941 the ue rate dropped to 9.66%, or 15.5% in 8 years. The fastest decline in the ue rate in the HISTORY OF THE US. All with extreme government intervention.
Third, in 1937 increased republican pressure, as they controlled congress again, caused FDR to back off stimulus spending, and by 1937 the nation paid the cost with a one year increase of nearly 5% in the ue rate. In 1937 FDR again increased stimulus spending and the decrease in the ue rate continued again.

Really, me boy, lying is bad form.

Take the average from 1933 to 1940, see what that number is.

147.62/7=21%

That's FDR first 2 terms, 21% Average unemployment -- you're calling that a success?

You continue to ignore the relief and reform that occurred during FDR's first two terms.

You continue to ignore the conservative economic legislation in 1936 that gutted the recovery until war preparations began for the US.

So, yes, you fail in analyzing why economic reform failed until to WWII.

The anti-FDR/anti-New Deal folks continue to use distorted unemployment numbers, despite more accurate numbers having been established over 40 years ago that incorporated people who worked and collected paychecks while employed in government-funded programs and projects that built infrastructure. When the realistic and accurate numbers that show real overall unemployment are used, employment figures move approximately 5% into the positive, or lower numbers. They account for the three and a half to four million workers who were in the New Deal work programs.

Easy to understand and quick read that explains why anti-FDR folks like to use outdated and distorted unemployment numbers. Graphs included in this link.
edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/very-short-reading-list-unemployment-in-the-1930s/

OK, I'll give you that.

So, FDR spent $3 Trillion and managed to have average 16% unemployment over 7 years.

That's a success?

The use of "average" skewers and distorts to some degree when you are discussing a seven year period. It takes the first year, which was inherited to boost that higher number and ignores the fact that the numbers went down, but remained high the second year until the New Deal programs kicked in. It also hides the three years that the unemployment dropped to below 10%.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Frank wants to pretend that economic conditions of 1921 (a booming consumer driven economy driven by demand after the WWI restrictions and two year need to retool the factories). None of that existed in 1936 and 1937: quite the opposite. No booming consumer driven economy existed, UE was high, then the conservative economic legislation from Congress dried up incentives by business to hire and produce.

Frank is almost there, just a few more steps.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank wants to pretend that economic conditions of 1921 (a booming consumer driven economy driven by demand after the WWI restrictions and two year need to retool the factories). None of that existed in 1936 and 1937: quite the opposite. No booming consumer driven economy existed, UE was high, then the conservative economic legislation from Congress dried up incentives by business to hire and produce.

Frank is almost there, just a few more steps.

Starkey walked out on the spiderweb of "Conservative economic legislation" and is hopelessly stuck. He can't admit that Coolidge succeeded wildly and FDR failed horribly. His only way out is to admit that nothing about FDR's Jihad against free enterprise called the New Deal was even remotely related to the conservative successes of the Roaring 20's.

He's spinning but just getting himself stuck further

 

[CrusaderFrank]

16.8%
Facts are stubborn things if you do not change the numbers. And lie. Like you do, CR. Lets add to your table the actual numbers, eh?

Average rate of Actual Unemployment
unemployment Per CF Rate
in 1929 ------ 3.14%
in 1933: 24.9% 24.75%
in 1934: 21.7% 21.6%
in 1935: 20.1% 19.97%
in 1936: 16.9% 16.8%
in 1937: 14.3% 14.18%
in 1938: 19.0% 18.91%
in 1939: 17.2% 17.05%
in 1940: 14.5% 14.45%
in 1941 ------- 9.66%
in 1942 -------- 4.7%
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html

So, crusader, WWII started in the end of 1941, but the war effects were primarily from 1942 on. Now, three facts you conveniently forgot.
First, The ue rate in 1929 was 3.14%. By 1933, just over 4 years later, with NO INTERVENTION, the ue rate went to 24.75%. That would be, if you could count, a raise of 22%. Which was the fastest and greatest raise in the ue rate EVER. EVER. Using those great republican principles of The Invisible Hand. And human suffering was immense. There is a reason the hand is invisible.
Second, From 1933 to 1941 the ue rate dropped to 9.66%, or 15.5% in 8 years. The fastest decline in the ue rate in the HISTORY OF THE US. All with extreme government intervention.
Third, in 1937 increased republican pressure, as they controlled congress again, caused FDR to back off stimulus spending, and by 1937 the nation paid the cost with a one year increase of nearly 5% in the ue rate. In 1937 FDR again increased stimulus spending and the decrease in the ue rate continued again.

Really, me boy, lying is bad form.

Take the average from 1933 to 1940, see what that number is.

147.62/7=21%

That's FDR first 2 terms, 21% Average unemployment -- you're calling that a success?

You continue to ignore the relief and reform that occurred during FDR's first two terms.

You continue to ignore the conservative economic legislation in 1936 that gutted the recovery until war preparations began for the US.

So, yes, you fail in analyzing why economic reform failed until to WWII.

The anti-FDR/anti-New Deal folks continue to use distorted unemployment numbers, despite more accurate numbers having been established over 40 years ago that incorporated people who worked and collected paychecks while employed in government-funded programs and projects that built infrastructure. When the realistic and accurate numbers that show real overall unemployment are used, employment figures move approximately 5% into the positive, or lower numbers. They account for the three and a half to four million workers who were in the New Deal work programs.

Easy to understand and quick read that explains why anti-FDR folks like to use outdated and distorted unemployment numbers. Graphs included in this link.
edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/very-short-reading-list-unemployment-in-the-1930s/

OK, I'll give you that.

So, FDR spent $3 Trillion and managed to have average 16% unemployment over 7 years.

That's a success?

The use of "average" skewers and distorts to some degree when you are discussing a seven year period. It takes the first year, which was inherited to boost that higher number and ignores the fact that the numbers went down, but remained high the second year until the New Deal programs kicked in. It also hides the three years that the unemployment dropped to below 10%.

So you don't like averages even after we use your new and improved accounting?

The 2 years it dipped below 10% was because

 

[JakeStarkey]

When Frank starts posting images, he is stuttering.

He has lost the discussions on 1921 and 1936 economics and legislation, and clearly does not understand that he is more in Hitler's corner than that of American principles.

Frank does not under consumer driven economies, he does not understand that legislation that hinders such economies when in depression or recession at a time when businesses can do the job by themselves always leads to worse times.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When Frank starts posting images, he is stuttering.

He has lost the discussions on 1921 and 1936 economics and legislation, and clearly does not understand that he is more in Hitler's corner than that of American principles.

Frank does not under consumer driven economies, he does not understand that legislation that hinders such economies when in depression or recession at a time when businesses can do the job by themselves always leads to worse times.

Jake, why was FDR economy NOT driven by "Consumers"?

Jake, "Help meeee. Help meee."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Take the average from 1933 to 1940, see what that number is.

147.62/7=21%

That's FDR first 2 terms, 21% Average unemployment -- you're calling that a success?

You continue to ignore the relief and reform that occurred during FDR's first two terms.

You continue to ignore the conservative economic legislation in 1936 that gutted the recovery until war preparations began for the US.

So, yes, you fail in analyzing why economic reform failed until to WWII.

The anti-FDR/anti-New Deal folks continue to use distorted unemployment numbers, despite more accurate numbers having been established over 40 years ago that incorporated people who worked and collected paychecks while employed in government-funded programs and projects that built infrastructure. When the realistic and accurate numbers that show real overall unemployment are used, employment figures move approximately 5% into the positive, or lower numbers. They account for the three and a half to four million workers who were in the New Deal work programs.

Easy to understand and quick read that explains why anti-FDR folks like to use outdated and distorted unemployment numbers. Graphs included in this link.
edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/very-short-reading-list-unemployment-in-the-1930s/

OK, I'll give you that.

So, FDR spent $3 Trillion and managed to have average 16% unemployment over 7 years.

That's a success?

The use of "average" skewers and distorts to some degree when you are discussing a seven year period. It takes the first year, which was inherited to boost that higher number and ignores the fact that the numbers went down, but remained high the second year until the New Deal programs kicked in. It also hides the three years that the unemployment dropped to below 10%.

So you don't like averages even after we use your new and improved accounting?

The 2 years it dipped below 10% was because

^ Hmm, why did US unemployment dip starting in 1940?