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.
That may be true but the point I was responding to was that Hoover didn't increase spending after the crash of 29.
The spending in 1929 was $3.90 Billion, which was lower than $3.93 Billion in 1922 under Harding. And considering where the economy was headed in 1929, any increase following that was miniscule by comparison, and especially compared to the FDR approach. One could argue that spending was much higher in 1918 and 1919 ($15.19B and $19.15B respectively) and cut down severely in 1920 ($5.93 Billion), the year of the depression (recession by modern definition).
Under FDR, spending increased drastically between 1933 and 1936, and the economy had turned around. Then came the cuts in 1937 and 1938 when the recovery stalled and went backwards, into recession. Spending increased again in 1939 and at $11.66 Billion, it was nearly three times as much. This was well before the spending really took off and economic recovery issue was put to rest:
1940: $12.54B
1941: $16.82B
1942: $38.14B
PS. All amounts are in 1925 dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi
It did increase by about 20% between 29-32.
Assuming you're speaking of debt, that shouldn't surprise anybody considering the state of the economy. There is absolutely no reason to believe the economy had been better if even the government spending had been cut severely to ensure a balanced budget. I would say, it would have been a disaster.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 05-13-2011 at 07:38 AM..
Thank you EG. I think we can put to rest the topic's assertion that FDR's policies to get us out of the Depression didn't work, because they did. We also discussed the Harding recovery and how it was demonstrably different from the Great Depression.
Thank you EG. I think we can put to rest the topic's assertion that FDR's policies to get us out of the Depression didn't work, because they did. We also discussed the Harding recovery and how it was demonstrably different from the Great Depression.
Is there any reason to continue this discussion?
yes you may learn something. YOUR word means little on this particular subject when the facts point out how incorrect you are. Lets see depression for a decade, war comes, economy is still bad, and that equates to success? LMAO keynesians are lost.
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 05-13-2011 at 08:12 AM..
Assuming you're speaking of debt, that shouldn't surprise anybody considering the state of the economy. There is absolutely no reason to believe the economy had been better if even the government spending had been cut severely to ensure a balanced budget. I would say, it would have been a disaster.
but you haven't based it on anything worthwhile. It's because YOU said so. You don't understand why money not being available in the great depression is bad and why that money wasn't available.
If you cannot understand the causes of the problem you cannot be expected to solve it. bandaids do not work. Treat the cause , not the symptom.
Same thing as what happened today. Denying the free market which destroys capitalism and promotes crony capitalism. "Free money" given to drunks with little positive payback history. Yea that works great for a very short time, until its time to pay the bill. The busts are always worse than the booms. It's not rocket science.
but you haven't based it on anything worthwhile. It's because YOU said so. You don't understand why money not being available in the great depression is bad and why that money wasn't available.
If you cannot understand the causes of the problem you cannot be expected to solve it.
So you have never seen any evidence of falling revenues with recessions, much less with Great Depression?
The spending in 1929 was $3.90 Billion, which was lower than $3.93 Billion in 1922 under Harding. And considering where the economy was headed in 1929, any increase following that was miniscule by comparison, and especially compared to the FDR approach. One could argue that spending was much higher in 1918 and 1919 ($15.19B and $19.15B respectively) and cut down severely in 1920 ($5.93 Billion), the year of the depression (recession by modern definition).
Under FDR, spending increased drastically between 1933 and 1936, and the economy had turned around. Then came the cuts in 1937 and 1938 when the recovery stalled and went backwards, into recession. Spending increased again in 1939 and at $11.66 Billion, it was nearly three times as much. This was well before the spending really took off and economic recovery issue was put to rest:
1940: $12.54B
1941: $16.82B
1942: $38.14B
PS. All amounts are in 1925 dollars.
Assuming you're speaking of debt, that shouldn't surprise anybody considering the state of the economy. There is absolutely no reason to believe the economy had been better if even the government spending had been cut severely to ensure a balanced budget. I would say, it would have been a disaster.
I am not sure what your points are, I was talking about 1929 through 1932. Again, FDR ran against Hoover saying that Hoover was spending too much money and FDR would balance the budget, obviously people thought he was spending. Look at where money was spent, it was used as stimulus.
I am not questioning if the spending was good or bad, just correcting the myth that Hoover didn't spend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Thank you EG. I think we can put to rest the topic's assertion that FDR's policies to get us out of the Depression didn't work, because they did. We also discussed the Harding recovery and how it was demonstrably different from the Great Depression.
Is there any reason to continue this discussion?
Do you really think that single digit deficit spending stimulus "got us out" of the depression? Adding 1-2 billion to 60 billion does not turn everything around. Individuals acting in their own self interests drive the economy. Government programs were just sidelines.
As I said, 1920 was a different era, it was in the middle of a cyclical boom, just like 2000 and 1990. Tax cuts or increases made very little difference to the overall trend, yet partisans on both sides use them to spew rhetoric back and forth to each other, claiming superiority. When in fact both sides are just a bunch of puppets spouting rhetoric fed to them by the elite.
I am not sure what your points are, I was talking about 1929 through 1932. Again, FDR ran against Hoover saying that Hoover was spending too much money and FDR would balance the budget, obviously people thought he was spending. Look at where money was spent, it was used as stimulus.
You're making FDR sound like a republican. I don't measure by claims. They are good to draw a baseline, but real measurement is in the actions which is what I'm concerned with and talking about.
Quote:
Do you really think that single digit deficit spending stimulus "got us out" of the depression? Adding 1-2 billion to 60 billion does not turn everything around. Individuals acting in their own self interests drive the economy. Government programs were just sidelines.
Every bit helps. If 5 million out of 130 million lose jobs tomorrow, what do you think it will do to the economy? Individuals can't always act in their self interest. They don't always have the resources to. They depend on such resources who must act, but why would they if they don't see a benefit from it? Isn't that why the recessions happen?
Quote:
As I said, 1920 was a different era, it was in the middle of a cyclical boom, just like 2000 and 1990. Tax cuts or increases made very little difference to the overall trend, yet partisans on both sides use them to spew rhetoric back and forth to each other, claiming superiority. When in fact both sides are just a bunch of puppets spouting rhetoric fed to them by the elite.
I would compare 1920 to 2001, both followed by tax cuts which were presented to have accelerated economic growth when all it really did was promote credit markets. The growth was hollow and the economy collapsed as a result. When we look at booms and busts, we must also consider what were the leading factors. The 1920s ended up with a banking/credit debacle, and the 2000s ended with... the same. And not surprisingly, at least a part of the problem in 2007-2009 recession was removing the safety net regulations instituted from experiences in the 1920s.
but you haven't based it on anything worthwhile. It's because YOU said so. You don't understand why money not being available in the great depression is bad and why that money wasn't available.
If you cannot understand the causes of the problem you cannot be expected to solve it. bandaids do not work. Treat the cause , not the symptom.
Same thing as what happened today. Denying the free market which destroys capitalism and promotes crony capitalism. "Free money" given to drunks with little positive payback history. Yea that works great for a very short time, until its time to pay the bill. The busts are always worse than the booms. It's not rocket science.
I may add my friend that you haven't proved anything with any evidence. I have post miles of data on this thread which makes the case 100% conclusive. And you? Just free-market rhetoric without any numbers.
Instead of you looking at the numbers posted, I'll just say it using small words that you'll be able to understand. From 1929 to 1933, very little was being done to address the Depression. By 1933, the was 25% unemployment and GDP was cut in half. Then, FDR was elected and immediately instituted those New Deal efforts that today's Republicans call ineffective.
Those efforts included mortgage relief, buying up short-term mortgages and converting them to long term mortgages; Social Security; deficit spending to build infrastructure; direct jobs programs like the WPA; bank regulation so people would have confidence in the banks and many other efforts.
From 1933 to 1937 unemployment shrinks and GDP dramatically rises. What happened in 1937? FDR listened to Republicans and scaled back the New Deal. The result was a recession. In 1938 FDR restarted the New Deal and the economy once again improved.
What's confounding is that conservatives assert that FDR's New Deal stimulus didn't work (even though the improvement is measurable) and that it was WWII that actually ended the Depression. However, what aspect of WWII would have any effect on the economy? Answer: massive government spending.
So, it has nothing to do with war spending works but peace spending doesn't. Dollars don't understand that concept. The amount of spending is what matters. The New Deal worked for the amount of money that was used. Had FDR thrown as much money at the Depression as he did in WWII, the Depression would have ended sooner.
EDIT:
Quote:
FDR ran against Hoover saying that Hoover was spending too much money and FDR would balance the budget,
That is true but that's not what FDR did. Once elected, his smart economists straightened him out.
Democrats have always been extremely ignorant about the correlation between tax increases to federal revenues (raise the former, and the latter collapses), and FDR was as as they came in that regard, but Obama will replace him as our worst President to date, if he hasn't surpassed him already in ignorance and incompetence.
Democrats have always been extremely ignorant about the correlation between tax increases to federal revenues (raise the former, and the latter collapses)
Got evidence that tax increases have resulted in lower federal revenues? Or you can't do better than parrot what you've been told to?
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 05-13-2011 at 09:32 AM..
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.
I don't measure by claims. They are good to draw a baseline, but real measurement is in the actions which is what I'm concerned with and talking about.
