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.
I can't stress this enough: never, NEVER trust Wikipedia without verifying anything they say through at least 2 other sources. Better yet, don't use Wiki at all.
No no, don't get me wrong, I AGREE with you. But some people do look at Wiki as an authority, that's all I was pointing out. If Humanoid has better information, he should rewrite it.
I do use Wikipedia for a variety of things, however. The physics and cosmology entries are pretty decent.
OK, I didn't mean any insult to you. I only use them for things about celebrities -- where it doesn't really matter if they're right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
No no, don't get me wrong, I AGREE with you. But some people do look at Wiki as an authority, that's all I was pointing out. If Humanoid has better information, he should rewrite it.
I do use Wikipedia for a variety of things, however. The physics and cosmology entries are pretty decent.
Maybe, but I'm still waiting for citations of all those credible sources that put the end of the depression as 1934. Those are very relevant.
You can find the information within minutes on Google. You can also find it on pretty much any economic based book on the subject (can't cite those online for you), here is an article online:
"A more vigorous recovery commenced in late 1935 and continued into 1937, when a new depression occurred. The American economy had yet to fully recover from the Great Depression when the United States was drawn into World War II in December 1941. Because of this agonizingly slow recovery, the entire decade of the 1930s in the United States is often referred to as the Great Depression"
This is exactly what I've said now 3 times. The depression as an macroeconomic event ended in 1934, but the entire 1930's is often referred to as the "The great depression" historically. But this has no particular economic meaning and hence talking about whether WW2 ended it is not particularly meaningful. Both the 1929~1934 depression and the 1937 recession (or short depression) were over before the war even started.
When reading through your source, I keep coming upon quotes that support my assertions and not yours.
Sure, there were short periods of economic expansion in 1934 through 1936, and when you have no place to go but up, that's positive, but the overall condition of the US and world economies was worse throughout the decade of the 1930s than anything we're seeing today. When you're at the bottom of the barrel, half way up seems good. The 1930s can be summed up as "one step forward, two steps backward" and that's why the entire decade is looked at as the "Great Depression" with WWII being recognized as the start of the expansion and end of depression.
From your source:
"Although the U.S. economy began to recover in the second quarter of 1933, the recovery largely stalled for most of 1934 and 1935. A more vigorous recovery commenced in late 1935 and continued into 1937, when a new depression occurred."
"It is commonly argued that World War II provided the stimulus that brought the American economy out of the Great Depression."
"Why was the recovery from the Great Depression so slow? A number of economists now argue that the NRA and monetary policy were important factors. Some maintain that Roosevelt’s vacillating policies and new federal regulations hindered recovery "
"By June 1937, the recovery—during which the unemployment rate had fallen to 12 percent—was over. Two policies, labor cost increases and a contractionary monetary policy, caused the economy to contract further. Although the contraction ended around June 1938, the ensuing recovery was quite slow. The average rate of unemployment for all of 1938 was 19.1 percent, compared with an average unemployment rate for all of 1937 of 14.3 percent. Even in 1940, the unemployment rate still averaged 14.6 percent."
"As the NRA codes began to take effect in the fall of 1933, they had precisely that effect. The recovery that had seemed so promising in the summer largely stopped, and there was little increase in economic activity from the fall of 1933 through midsummer 1935."
I will say it for the fifth time now. "Depression" has a particular meaning in economics and in the macroeconomic sense the depression ended in 1934. This does not mean things were rosy in 1934 it means the depression (again, in the macroeconomic sense) ended at that time. Its sort of hard for "a new depression" to occur if the economy was already in a depression in 1937 huh? I mean are you actually reading this stuff?
The source I gave in no sense refutes my claims, rather it confirms what I'm saying. You seem to have an inability to distinguish the meaning of a depression in the macroeconomic sense and what is typically referred to as "The great depression" which has no exact economic meaning and is rather just a period historic period.
Also, it is large Republican partisans that "commonly argued that WW2...". Republicans hated FDR and will deny the effectiveness of the New Deal regardless of the facts. That is how partisan politics works.
But, what role WW2 had in the recovery from the sluggish 1930's is debated even with non-partisan economists. If anything more argue that WW2 didn't play a big role in the ultimate recover contrary to the positions by many on this thread. I really can't think off head of a single one that thinks it was the primary source of recovery though.
But at the very least, the topic is still debated and there is no generally agreed on answer to this issue. The only people that would think there is are people that have never read much about the period or of course partisans of the Republican persuasion.
I agree with your last post, but I would argue that the US economy was ramping up before WWII as we increased military spending.
Though we weren't officially involved in WWII until Dec 1941, think about all the ships we lost at Pearl Harbor. A lot of money had to be spent to build much of that fleet and it took a lot of jobs to do that. Certainly, things were not great in the late 1930s, but not as bad as in 1929-1934. I am okay with going with 2 depressions, 1929-1934 and 1937-1939, which many combine into one and call the Great Depression.
Most of my economics and history professors (I have degrees in both) argued that it was ultimately war spending that brought us out of bad economics times. Economic spending, whether from the TVA or from building aircraft carriers, brought the economy back. Both FDR's policies and war spending together contributed to a recovery. I honestly don't know which one was more important.
I saw that from 1929 to 1954, inflation-adjusted, you would have broken even on the market. Now, they are saying you have to go back 10 years to break even on the market. If we adjust for inflation, how far back, (12-13 years?) do we have to go back? Just curious.
Most of my economics and history professors (I have degrees in both) argued that it was ultimately war spending that brought us out of bad economics times. Economic spending, whether from the TVA or from building aircraft carriers, brought the economy back. Both FDR's policies and war spending together contributed to a recovery. I honestly don't know which one was more important.
I'm not really considered with what history professors say about what caused the end of the depression. Anyhow, nobody really denies that war spending created a stimulus. The question is whether it was the dominate factor or not, most economics that I know of don't think it is. Yet, pop culture thinks its want ended the great depression. There is also this idea in pop culture that it was something about the war that that fixed things and perhaps we are going to have another such war. But it wasn't the war it was the economic stimulus created by all the deficit spending to support the war. You could've spent all on domestic projects and it would've actually benefited the country more.
There is also this idea in pop culture that it was something about the war that that fixed things and perhaps we are going to have another such war. But it wasn't the war it was the economic stimulus created by all the deficit spending to support the war. You could've spent all on domestic projects and it would've actually benefited the country more.
Pop culture? No pop culture, just history. I don't think anyone has ever advocated for a war as a means to ending a recession/depression/lack of expansion/[put your favorite label here]. The fact was that WWII was a war we couldn't avoid, given the threat to Britain in Europe and the threat to Asia/Pacific Rim and us from Japan.
We began ramping for war in 1940 due to Roosevelt's refusal to give in to the pacificts and isolationists. A draft was passed by one vote, and spending for the buildup was passed out of necessity to protect the country, not some misguided desire for fiscal stimulus. The side effect of the buildup was the stimulus. Britain was hanging on by a shoe string and we were woefully unprepared for the fight that was about to come to us. There was no other choice than to build up and do it quickly. That massive stimulus and the resulting full employment and wartime economy was what broke us loose from the "macroeconomic event" that had us by the short hairs for 10 years.
I'm not sure what the comment "you could've spent all on domestic projects and it would've actually benefited the country more" means in the context of WWII. Are you making the case that we should have stayed out and spent the money on more CCC and WPA projects instead of saving the free world? In my mind, saving millions of people from Nazi and Japanese fascist tyranny was the best possible use of that money. Not too many people make the case that our involvement in WWII was a waste of money.
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.
Humanoid
