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.
[quote=MTAtech;20764838]Henry Morgenthau was always hostile to the New Deal as he promoted balanced budgets. In 1937, Morgenthau successfully convinced Roosevelt to finally focus on balancing the budget through major spending cuts which caused the 1937 recession.
It's important to know history.
Morgenthau was also wrong, after eight years unemployment was far lower than in 1932, and the 1937 bump, was Morgenthau's doing.
[/quote
You consider 17.09% unemployment in 1939 a success?
The only reason unemployment finally did begin to decline in 1940 is because the military draft was reinstated September 16, 1940 pulling 20,000 able-bodied young men out of the work force every month for the duration of the war.
You consider 17.09% unemployment in 1939 a success?
The only reason unemployment finally did begin to decline in 1940 is because the military draft was reinstated September 16, 1940 pulling 20,000 able-bodied young men out of the work force every month for the duration of the war.
Considering that unemployment had fallen to 15% from 25%, yes, that's a success.
The New Deal was around 3 percent of GDP - not much, when you've got a 42 percent output gap. FDR might have been more of a Keynesian if Keynesian economics had existed -- "The General Theory" wasn't published until 1936.
What caused unemployment to fall further was massive government expenditures for the war effort, which created demand and brought factory output back to full capacity. When 20 million people were out of work, remove 20,000 a month clearly wasn't what made the difference.
As I said the last time you said that, the Great Depression and the recession of 1920 were completely different. The 1920 recession was a inflation-fighting recession responding to an overheated economy due to WWI. The Great Depression was a lack of demand economy that with deflation, not inflation, as the enemy.
The 1920 recession was closer to the 1981-82 recession than the Great Depression. As such, there are no useful lessons from 1920-1 recession that make any sense for today's recession.
You've made your point. Economists disagree. You can believe it resembles 1981-1982 if you wish, but IMO it only resembles it in terms of duration.
Considering that unemployment had fallen to 15% from 25%, yes, that's a success.
The New Deal was around 3 percent of GDP - not much, when you've got a 42 percent output gap. FDR might have been more of a Keynesian if Keynesian economics had existed -- "The General Theory" wasn't published until 1936.
What caused unemployment to fall further was massive government expenditures for the war effort, which created demand and brought factory output back to full capacity. When 20 million people were out of work, remove 20,000 a month clearly wasn't what made the difference.
Oh, excuse my type-o.
That would be 200,000 able-bodied young men per month, not counting volunteers and officers.
"This facilitated the massive requirement of up to 200,000 men per month and would remain the standard for the length of the war. The World War II draft operated from 1940 until 1947 when its legislative authorization expired without further extension by Congress. During this time, more than 11 million men had been inducted into military service"
That would be 200,000 able-bodied young men per month, not counting volunteers and officers.
"This facilitated the massive requirement of up to 200,000 men per month and would remain the standard for the length of the war. The World War II draft operated from 1940 until 1947 when its legislative authorization expired without further extension by Congress. During this time, more than 11 million men had been inducted into military service"
The law allowed up to 200,000 per month. How many were actually drafted before Dec 7, 1941?
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73
You've made your point. Economists disagree. You can believe it resembles 1981-1982 if you wish, but IMO it only resembles it in terms of duration.
What economists, Thomas E. Woods? We understand that ultra-conservatives claim that the hands-off response to the 1920-21 recession was the right model for our times but even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.
The evidence of a parallel between 1921 and today is nonexistent, the parallels to the 1980s is clear. In 1921 interest rates were high, while today they are low; the CPI surged, today it's low; money was tight in the 1921 recession, today it's loose; commercial paper rates were 7.5% in 1921, today rates are low.
In every measurable metric it's clear that the recession was caused by an overheated economy rather than the liquidity trap that we have now. It's like saying we should treat a pneumonia patient the same as malaria patient because they both have a fever.
You are right the New Deal did have some benifits.
it went a long way to subjugating Americans to the Federal government in ways they had never been before.
It gave the democrat party power because it created a greater dependant class...
beyond that, the new deal (really raw deal) prolonged the Great Depression and made actual Americans suffer more.
oh and we also got a great ponzi scheme out of the raw deal.
That's merely a sick view of what went on. The New Deal gave Social Security to seniors, who previously mostly lived in poverty during their golden years. Today, seniors apart from being dependent have financial independence.
It's so interesting reading posts from conservatives who twist facts and reality because those facts and reality interfere with their ideological viewpoint. It's interesting to note that even Republicans like Eisenhower viewed these programs as positive because they lived through them.
The right always have bad things to say about the New Deal, but it doesn't do its research to find out all of the benefits.
Roosevelt's own Sec. of Treasury admitted it was a waste, and history showed in turned a Recession into a Depression. Gov't meddling rarely, if ever, improves things.
That's merely a sick view of what went on. The New Deal gave Social Security to seniors, who previously mostly lived in poverty during their golden years. Today, seniors apart from being dependent have financial independence.
It's so interesting reading posts from conservatives who twist facts and reality because those facts and reality interfere with their ideological viewpoint. It's interesting to note that even Republicans like Eisenhower viewed these programs as positive because they lived through them.
What you said is merely a sick view of the facts of the New Deal, it's devestation to America and Ponzi Scheme SS (Social Security)
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.
