Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Great Depression and New Deal, 1929-1939 (http://iws.ccccd.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/20th%20Century/DepressionNewDeal.html - broken link)
No one said anything about it not helping the poor or impoverished. He was elected 4 times. I did say though that it didn't do much at all for helping people work or give much of a long term solution to the problems of the time. That should be obvious after almost a decade of spending the unemployment rate was still above 15% and didn't drop down until the war started. After the war it's very clear we became the economic giant we are today. I do understand you can google though...
Krugman is not a centrist at all. Seriously, the only people that claim FDR fixed the economy with whacked out Keynesian economics would be the sources like you used, community colleges and clearly biased .orgs. We already went through this and people from credible schools of higher education like say Berkely which by the way went into the encylepedia Britannica.
Quote:
Encyclopaedia Britannica , December 2003.
Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, initiated in early 1933, did include a
number of new federal programs aimed at generating recovery. For example, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) hired the unemployed to work on government building projects, and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) gave large payments to farmers. However, the actual increases in government spending and the government budget deficit were small relative to the size of the economy. This is especially apparent when state government budget deficits are included, because those deficits actually declined at the same time that the federal deficit rose. As a result, the new spending programs initiated by the New Deal had little direct expansionary effect on the economy. Whether they may nevertheless have had positive effects on consumer and business sentiment remains an open question. United States military spending related to World War II was not large enough to appreciably affect total spending and output until 1941.
Krugman is not a centrist at all. Seriously, the only people that claim FDR fixed the economy with whacked out Keynesian economics would be the sources like you used, community colleges and clearly biased .orgs. We already went through this and people from credible schools of higher education like say Berkely which by the way went into the encylepedia Britannica. http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/crom...depression.pdf
I'd see what Krugman says about this. (Your post #52. This a reply to both your posts, fyi)
Again, it was not about expanding the economy- although as your data shows, unemployment went down 10 points by 1936- it was about perserving the economy from any greater contraction.
Then there's the political piece: Huey Long, Father Coghlin. Look at the results of the '32 election to see how dicey it was.
As for sources, see the Time article I presented.
Again, only the fringe is expousing the theories you have been- theories again proven wrong (remember Milton Friedman?) when the TARP did not immediately stop this depression.
Krugman just won the Nobel Prize in Economics. That's how "radical" he is.
No, you'll never see a liberal econ-type on tv in the US- their predictions are too accurate, and they don't say what the corporations want to hear.
Krugman just won the Nobel Prize in Economics. That's how "radical" he is.
Maybe you should look what he won the noble prize in. And winning a noble prize in economics means someone has a monopoly on how economics should go. That's obviously not the case in any instance.
Quote:
"for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity"
Maybe you should look what he won the noble prize in. And winning a noble prize in economics means someone has a monopoly on how economics should go. That's obviously not the case in any instance.
Maybe you should see what a Nobel Lauriate means in their respective intellectual community.
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Cost Creep (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=323995763436905 - broken link)
Please, expand your horizons so you know WTH you are talking about.
These are government run programs?
The voting rights act is a government program. Who did you think was running it? The PTA?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
I wasn't. The link should have gone right before the opinion quote - I neglected to put it in.
Wrong - opinion corroborated by facts and statistics.
In other words, opinion pieces that You post!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
