by telriche » Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:13 pm
by nmoore63 » Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:27 pm
by telriche » Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:32 pm
by nmoore63 » Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:45 pm
by telriche » Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:03 pm
by nmoore63 » Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:56 am
by e_room_matt » Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:25 pm
by telriche » Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:55 pm
by telriche » Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:03 pm
e_room_matt wrote:Military buildups, price controls and government spending do not make their peoples rich (quite the opposite). If they did, every nation on the planet would have become a haven of plenty 2000 years ago.
by StCapps » Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:22 am
The New Deal was not successful just because some of it's infrastructure projects like the Hoover Dam ended up being useful. The government spending crowded out private investment and stalled the recovery. Recovery from the Great Depression only occurred after many New Deal regulations were removed post-WWII and government spending was slashed sharply. Paying people to dig ditches and fill them back in is bad for the economy because you are wasting resources by paying people to do unproductive work instead of giving resources to people actually doing productive things.telriche wrote:e_room_matt wrote:Military buildups, price controls and government spending do not make their peoples rich (quite the opposite). If they did, every nation on the planet would have become a haven of plenty 2000 years ago.
Very true. These can all be very detrimental to an economy, as shown by the now failed economy of the USSR. The main benefit for this time period was more the employment of people who would have otherwise not had a way of supporting themselves or their families and the infrastructure that we built an industrial power house upon. In essence, it was an imperfect solution at the right place and time. In most other scenarios, these policies, build-ups and controls would have been devastating to an economy.
Just because something worked well at one point in history does not make them universally successful, or even mostly successful. Merely successful for that point and time.
by nmoore63 » Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:04 pm
That seems like a lot of text to say:telriche wrote:By 1936, GDP had increased and had been affected by the inflation caused by the Great Depression. If you look at the fancy chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gdp29-41.jpg) you will see that the chart itself is real gdp shown in terms of the value of the dollar as of the year 2000 (and as such accounts for inflation and the rarer deflation). And that on that chart it shows us a nice picture of how the recovery came along in terms of the macro. In terms of the micro, this chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_depression.svg) is also done in terms of the value of the 2000 dollar. In this chart you see that as of the year 1937, income in terms of year 2000 dollars had once again stablized.
This did not of course equate to a perfect recovery of lifestyle, however, the most significant benefit of the New Deal was more the infrastructure building than the boost to the economy. The boost would, by its nature be temporary, while the infrastructure building still benefit us to this day. That said the boost did help prop up and support people who would have otherwise died or become permanently destitute until the economy could recover naturally.
The longest depression was the Long Depression, which lasted longer than the Great Depression and was far more severe. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression) "The Long Depression is sometimes held to be the entire period from 1873–96."
Furthermore, real per-capita income either stayed approximately constant (1873–1880; 1883–1885) or rose (1881–1882; 1886–1896), so that the average consumer appears to have been considerably better off at the end of the 'depression' than before.
by telriche » Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:59 pm
by telriche » Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:11 am
by GrittyTacoman » Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:21 pm
by Penner » Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:07 pm
GrittyTacoman wrote:For what it's worth, I personally think there's lots of Monday morning quarterbacking that goes on from modern day conservatives who hate everything FDR did. Could the president have done more to shorten the Depression? Most certainly. But let's take a look at the grand scheme of things. The Depression was so bad in many countries that the people saw electing some of the most deranged madmen in history as their leaders. I've read about the famines in Russia during the time, where parents would cook up their youngest to feed the rest of the family. And then there's the recent controversial study by a Russian academic showing that several million Americans probably died of starvation, exposure, or related ailments during the Depression. (I recognize this isn't historical canon yet, but it is food for thought)
http://www.cherada.com/articulos/10-mil ... ssion-time
In other words, it would be very,very easy for America to have become a fascist state, had a violent communist revolt, or slipped into full famine die-off mode during the Depression. The fact that FDR held the country together is something we should give him credit for.