Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal

Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

MrRodgers -> Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 12:46:07 PM)
Saw this at another post and it is very telling...very. Tends to put things in a very respectable perspective. http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/363/Depression_GDP_output_1.gif

MasterShake69 -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 2:01:24 PM)
The US economy was the only major one that left WW II undamaged. Prior to Dec 7, ww 2 was still going on. We were increasing production shipping supplies to the British.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 2:03:09 PM)
Sorry, I don't know the answer or truth either way, however, such a simplified chart shows little and proves nothing. Firm

ScooterTrash -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 2:38:27 PM)
I'm certainly not a know it all on such matters so I did a little research. Economists do measure the economy as GDP. GDP equals spending and only spending on NEW goods and services. GDP is a perhaps the best economic INDICATOR available, however it is just an indicator and a bit one sided. You can be deep in debt, you could be selling off your house, your car, your furniture, your 401k (and anything else that's not a new good or service), but as long as you are spending money on new stuff the GDP would show that your doing fine. Typically that would be true, but there may be different reasons for spending between time periods that could skew the numbers. Perhaps more important when judging this (New deal) would be the unemployment numbers; 1929 2.6 million 1933 15 million 1935 11 million 1937 8.3 million 1938 10.5 million 1939 9.2 million 1940 8 million Obviously the unemployment did not recover during that same time period. Most anything you read about the "new deal" indicates that the largest effect it had was the "feel good" effect, people felt like something was being done so they lightened up and parted with more of their cash. Whether it actually helped the economy is somewhat debatable.

rulemylife -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 3:01:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash Perhaps more important when judging this (New deal) would be the unemployment numbers; 1929 2.6 million 1933 15 million 1935 11 million 1937 8.3 million 1938 10.5 million 1939 9.2 million 1940 8 million Obviously the unemployment did not recover during that same time period. Huh? Are we looking at the same numbers? FDR took office in '33. The number of unemployed, by your chart, decreased from 15 million in 1933 to 8 million by 1940. I would call a 54% decrease in unemployment during that time period a pretty substantial recovery.

MarsBonfire -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 3:04:49 PM)
Again, basic math eludes people, that thei "evidence" only serves to prove them wrong. Good catch rule! The stupid, it burns!

corysub -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 3:13:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash I'm certainly not a know it all on such matters so I did a little research. Economists do measure the economy as GDP. GDP equals spending and only spending on NEW goods and services. GDP is a perhaps the best economic INDICATOR available, however it is just an indicator and a bit one sided. You can be deep in debt, you could be selling off your house, your car, your furniture, your 401k (and anything else that's not a new good or service), but as long as you are spending money on new stuff the GDP would show that your doing fine. Typically that would be true, but there may be different reasons for spending between time periods that could skew the numbers. Perhaps more important when judging this (New deal) would be the unemployment numbers; 1929 2.6 million 1933 15 million 1935 11 million 1937 8.3 million 1938 10.5 million 1939 9.2 million 1940 8 million Obviously the unemployment did not recover during that same time period. Most anything you read about the "new deal" indicates that the largest effect it had was the "feel good" effect, people felt like something was being done so they lightened up and parted with more of their cash. Whether it actually helped the economy is somewhat debatable. Great post ... certainly it's not too difficult to check a comment made from data on the Daily Kos. In the real world it doesn't do a couple trying to feed their family if the GDP triples....that's only a measurement of activity...not JOBS! The government builds something and cement, lumber, electrical workers all get "work"...but they don't have a job...when the project is over it's back to the breakline. I mentioned on another thread that the Boston "Big Ditch" was supposed to cost $6 Billion and the final tally was $25 Billion!! An at it's peak only 5000 workers were on the project. Numbers of unemployed are real...but to put it in perspective, it's the "unemployment rate" of the workforce that is Key..not the Daily Kos distraction of GDP. Using the the unemployment rate is a staggaring indictment of the "New Deal"... Year Rate 1920 5.2 % 1928 4.2 1930 8.7 1932 23.6 1934 21.7 1936 16.9 1938 19.0 1940 14.6 1942 4.7% 1944 1.2 1946 3.9 And key here too..is that in the 1930's the bulk of workers supporting familes were men and women were in the household. The impact of unemployment was much more severe on a family...

Termyn8or -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 3:22:09 PM)
Throw numbers out all you want, I have no dispute with them. But the fact still remains that the new deal was basically a new credit card for the government to use, which seemed to have no limit, but I think we are getting there. The recovery act and all that stuff that went on did help the country at the time. But it was a stop gap, and in the long run set us up for a bigger fall. Typical government behavior. When thay say the national debt gets paid by our progeny, they forget that part of it gets paid by us. Neither side of the aisle in Washington can figure out how to get us out of it, so it will continue, ad infinitum, until the day we die. And while we worked to pay debt incurred long ago, future generations will pay the debts we incur today. That's the new deal. Deal with it. (actually you are, whether you like it or not) T

rulemylife -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 3:55:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub Numbers of unemployed are real...but to put it in perspective, it's the "unemployment rate" of the workforce that is Key..not the Daily Kos distraction of GDP. Using the the unemployment rate is a staggaring indictment of the "New Deal"... Year Rate 1932 23.6 1934 21.7 1936 16.9 1938 19.0 1940 14.6 1942 4.7% 1944 1.2 Again, am I missing some sort of secret psychic math ability that everyone seems to be able to read into these numbers? FDR became President in 1933. Your own chart shows it went down from 23.6% in 1932 to 14.6% in 1940 and further declined after we entered the war. So, how is a 9% reduction in unemployment in his first two terms "a staggering indictment of the New Deal"?

rulemylife -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 4:08:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Throw numbers out all you want, I have no dispute with them. But the fact still remains that the new deal was basically a new credit card for the government to use, which seemed to have no limit, but I think we are getting there. The recovery act and all that stuff that went on did help the country at the time. But it was a stop gap, and in the long run set us up for a bigger fall. Typical government behavior. If that is indeed the fact, then how about giving something to support that fact other than your own opinion? A stop gap that set us up for a bigger fall? By all measurements the economy improved steadily after he took office, throughout the war, and long after the war. When exactly did that big fall happen? Twenty-five, thirty years later? Yep, I see your point, the New Deal was a failure.[8\|]

ScooterTrash -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 5:32:23 PM)
Rule, I think the point is that yes it improved, but it didn't recover to what it was prior to the depression with the "new deal". Kind of like "yes, we found some tumors and you've improved, but you're still dying". Many historians state that the war had more of a positive influence on the economy than the new deal projects, although one would have to assume it had enough of a positive influence to get us through to that point.

MrRodgers -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 6:04:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash I'm certainly not a know it all on such matters so I did a little research. Economists do measure the economy as GDP. GDP equals spending and only spending on NEW goods and services. GDP is a perhaps the best economic INDICATOR available, however it is just an indicator and a bit one sided. You can be deep in debt, you could be selling off your house, your car, your furniture, your 401k (and anything else that's not a new good or service), but as long as you are spending money on new stuff the GDP would show that your doing fine. Typically that would be true, but there may be different reasons for spending between time periods that could skew the numbers. Perhaps more important when judging this (New deal) would be the unemployment numbers; 1929 2.6 million 1933 15 million 1935 11 million 1937 8.3 million 1938 10.5 million 1939 9.2 million 1940 8 million Obviously the unemployment did not recover during that same time period. Most anything you read about the "new deal" indicates that the largest effect it had was the "feel good" effect, people felt like something was being done so they lightened up and parted with more of their cash. Whether it actually helped the economy is somewhat debatable. Recessions and depressions are not defined by how many are or are not employed but instead whether or not GDP grew, remained the same or contracted. The chart is enough to convince me that there was economic growth starting from the time he was elected. This continued until he slashed programs to balance the budget and began to grow again when building up to supply Europe and our armed forces.

rulemylife -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 6:07:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash Rule, I think the point is that yes it improved, but it didn't recover to what it was prior to the depression with the "new deal". Kind of like "yes, we found some tumors and you've improved, but you're still dying". Many historians state that the war had more of a positive influence on the economy than the new deal projects, although one would have to assume it had enough of a positive influence to get us through to that point. No, it didn't recover to pre-Depression standards, but I think that's not surprising considering that the economy virtually collapsed. World War II sped things up, but the economy was improving and there is no reason to believe that improvement wouldn't have continued without the war.

MrRodgers -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 6:24:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash Rule, I think the point is that yes it improved, but it didn't recover to what it was prior to the depression with the "new deal". Kind of like "yes, we found some tumors and you've improved, but you're still dying". Many historians state that the war had more of a positive influence on the economy than the new deal projects, although one would have to assume it had enough of a positive influence to get us through to that point. According to this chart, in 1936 we set a record GDP and for historical purposes of debate, when Reagan took office the recession that began in 1979 after our second oil shock...pushed up unemployment which was soon to be higher than it is now. Nobody talked as if it was the worse economic times since the depression...no 'job' programs or bailouts. The discussion then and always was and will be...GDP Economics in general and as a rule, does not account for employment and economic measurments such as GDP, doesn't account for unemployment. What is used is factory or production capacity utilization.

MrRodgers -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 6:28:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: corysub Numbers of unemployed are real...but to put it in perspective, it's the "unemployment rate" of the workforce that is Key..not the Daily Kos distraction of GDP. Using the the unemployment rate is a staggaring indictment of the "New Deal"... Year Rate 1932 23.6 1934 21.7 1936 16.9 1938 19.0 1940 14.6 1942 4.7% 1944 1.2 Again, am I missing some sort of secret psychic math ability that everyone seems to be able to read into these numbers? FDR became President in 1933. Your own chart shows it went down from 23.6% in 1932 to 14.6% in 1940 and further declined after we entered the war. So, how is a 9% reduction in unemployment in his first two terms "a staggering indictment of the New Deal"? No..no you don't get to change the terms of the debate. The debate is depression or recession as measured SOLELY by GDP. In 1936 we set a record GDP.

MrRodgers -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 6:47:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Sorry, I don't know the answer or truth either way, however, such a simplified chart shows little and proves nothing. Firm As far as I am concerned this proves a record GDP in 1936. Proves the capitalist and his political cronies have been very successful in their propaganda all these years on how the new deal was supposed to have been so bad for America. FDR saved capitalism...from the venality and greed of the capitalist and we (taxpayers) are now doing it again. Oh and btw...govt. figures always showed 3-4 million part-time govt. secretaries etc. as...unemployed.

Sanity -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 7:16:15 PM)
One musn't forget either, that the "lend-lease" project started well before we entered the war and that "lend-lease" gave America's industrial base a tremendous kick start which really got us moving. The very indusrtrial base current Democrats would love to shut down in order to save the rock, er, planet. All praise Algore. [sm=bowdown.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash Rule, I think the point is that yes it improved, but it didn't recover to what it was prior to the depression with the "new deal". Kind of like "yes, we found some tumors and you've improved, but you're still dying". Many historians state that the war had more of a positive influence on the economy than the new deal projects, although one would have to assume it had enough of a positive influence to get us through to that point.

MzMia -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 7:24:52 PM)
Great topic Mr.Rodgers, it gives us something to think about! [sm=meh.gif]

Owner59 -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 7:33:37 PM)
They both helped.The ND as well as WWII. Saying it was only one is fibbing. The GOP didn`t want the New Deal because they didn`t want democrats to get any credit for improving things. Which they did.4 years after the New Deal,unemployment was down from 25% to 15%.A clear success. But cons wish to revise history and call the New Deal a failure. Today,the GOP dosen`t want the recovery bill because they don`t want the democrats to get any credit for improving things. This is why they all voted against it,save two or three Senators. That`s why there`s a recent effort to argue against and fib about the ND and revise history(just like here).

corysub -> RE: Debunking the failure of FDR's New Deal (2/9/2009 7:35:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: corysub Numbers of unemployed are real...but to put it in perspective, it's the "unemployment rate" of the workforce that is Key..not the Daily Kos distraction of GDP. Using the the unemployment rate is a staggaring indictment of the "New Deal"... Year Rate 1932 23.6 1934 21.7 1936 16.9 1938 19.0 1940 14.6 1942 4.7% 1944 1.2 Again, am I missing some sort of secret psychic math ability that everyone seems to be able to read into these numbers? FDR became President in 1933. Your own chart shows it went down from 23.6% in 1932 to 14.6% in 1940 and further declined after we entered the war. So, how is a 9% reduction in unemployment in his first two terms "a staggering indictment of the New Deal"? Possibly you might better understand the math if you saw each year of unemployment during the 1930's, a number that ranged between 14% and 19% for most of the decade. I don't know what your hearing but in my neck of the woods people are getting nervous because the unemployment rate nationally is almost 8%...and you think 14% is wonderful?? What economists would considert that a job well done by our politicians? Unless they replay W2 what chance would you give the democrat party if in two years the unemployment rate is 14%!...?? During this period there were food riots and communist organizers were aggressively recruiting. There was a real possibility..as we are seeing today, for the economic and social system of the country to be totally turned upside down and go socialist. Unemployment Year Rate 1933 - 24.9% 1234 - 21.7% 1935 - 20.1% 1936 - 17.0% 1937 - 14.3% 1938 - 19.0% 1939 - 17.2% 1940 - 14.6% 1941 - 9.9% 1942 - 4.7% 1943 - 1.9% 1944 - 1.2% While the economy recovered somewhat from 1933 depressed levels, the unemployment rate remained in the 15 percent range for the rest of the decade since population growth in the workforce exeeded the growth in the economy.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125