Yes, because the people on those “grandiose work programs” didn’t take the pay they received and do anything to help the economy, like… buy groceries.
I guess the Heritage Foundation and other think tanks don’t consider going to the supermarket as contributing to the economy. 
So, you started with a false claim about economic improvement during the 1930s. Then you jumped to employment. Now your arguing that servicemen were getting killed and rationing during the 1940s were bad, so therefore… what? Following your line of “argument” is dizzying.
If they taught you false information in high school, it’s not too late to rectify the problem. It’s up to you, though.
Of course they used the money to buy groceries. So them doing so should correlate to job growth in the private sector, right? But it does not as evidenced by the soaring Real unemployment rate.
I was simply arguing that an increase in GDP does not mean an increase in prosperity. Not seeing why that is dizzying.
You didn’t start out arguing prosperity. You started talking about economic development, then employment, during the 1930s, then bad things in the 1940s, then wealth, and now prosperity.
You are all over the map.
Just for grins, what measure of wealth or of prosperity are you relying on for your claims? What do the data say about wealth and/or prosperity from say, 1929 to 1946?
I don’t believe an accurate measure of prosperity exists. If one exists I would be very interested in knowing it. The only evidence I could produce is anecdotal.
Just for grins do you believe GDP is an accurate measurement of prosperity?
Then it makes it very difficult to assess any claim about the level of prosperity or changes in prosperity under different conditions. A construct that you cannot measure isn’t very useful.
So, why have we moved from constructs for which agreed upon measures exist to one that could only be anecdotally described? That’s not a very helpful way of pursuing a line of argument.
I think GDP is a good measure of gross domestic product. I think its a useful metric regarding a country’s economy, and one that is pertinent to your first claim. I’ve made no claims one way or the other about prosperity, or wealth.
I understand what you are saying but I reject that assessments of prosperity can be made with robot-like adherence to one piece of data.
Ok would you agree that there was no increase in prosperity until after WWII?
Adhering to things with agreed upon measurement might be called empirical, scientific, logical, but robotic isn’t particularly accurate or helpful.
Further, the evidence for the New Deal does not come from one single indicator - we’ve already talked about two different ones. Looking across any and all indicators tells a consistent story about the effects of the New Deal.
Didn’t you just get done saying that you don’t have a measurement of prosperity? So, how can you even formulate a hypothesis about change in something you can’t even define?
I’ve already proven that increases in GDP do not correlate with increases with prosperity.
I’ve pointed out that increases in workfare employment did not correspond with increases in real employment.
There’s your data for you. Now provide something that proves the New Deal worked or we have nothing to talk about.
You never heard stories o the depression?
Really? Where did you prove that?
This is false.
Your erroneous beliefs are not evidence.
I’m relying on things that can be measured. You’re relying on fantasy anecdotes. I do not believe that we will be able to talk about anything. That doesn’t change the actual, empirical facts about the US economy during the 1930’s.
See why people reject Libertarianism? Its primary advocates cannot present any rationale arguments for it that make any sense. They work primarily in fantasy. Reminds me of that joke:
Yes. And I’ve looked at data regarding the depression. I base my understanding of the effects of the New Deal on data.
When I went off about the soaring GDP and low prosperity I proved it was a misleading statistic.
How did workfare employment stimulate private sector employment? Look at the unemployment statistics and you’ll see how.
I am by no means a pure libertarian but I do know the New Deal was a failed program.
Never read Rand and, from what ive heard of her philosophy, it doesn’t appeal to me. If you want to tie sociopaths into the debate how about I bring in Benito Mussolini? In his review of FDRs Looking Forward he found it “reminiscent of fascism… the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices”.
Roosevelt’s advisor Rexford Tugwell said “it’s the cleanest most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. I’m envious”
I get it: “Use hard mathematical arguments to prove your point, or it doesn’t count. Oh, and no fair using anything you can measure numerically, since those are all meaningless.”.
So you don’t buy my argument that GDP is not an accurate measure of prosperity?
How about the stagnation of private sector job growth during the depression. How do you explain that?
That’s right nobody has been able to refute these claims. You guys have failed to convince me I’m wrong on this subject. I think I’ll just take my ball and go home.
Which depression? Obama must be doing pretty well for a socialist if he’s creating all these private sector jobs!
Sadly, this sums up most Libertarian threads on SDMB.
It’s easy to come up with one once you have a clear and precise definition of prosperity. Start there. Whatever you consider “prosperity,” it is a thing measurable and expressible in numbers; if it ain’t, something’s wrong with your definition.
Do you know what the word “prove” means? You’ve already acknowledged that you don’t know what prosperity is, or how it could be measured, so it’s not possible to prove that it is or is not correlated with GDP.
I have. They are in the link that I already gave you. Private sector unemployment went from a high of just over 30% to just under 15% by 1937, so I’d say they went pretty damn good, wouldn’t you?
What is prosperity? Give me a definition that is even remotely reasonable, and I will guarantee that prosperity improved under the New Deal.
It can’t be explained because it didn’t happen. At least not in reality. Private sector unemployment exploded until 1933, and then the New Deal cut it in half in four years!
It has taken less than about 30 seconds per claim to refute them. This is just really pathetic debate behavior. As a representative of libertarianism, you might want to try harder next time.
Workfare employment stimulates private-sector employment because people on workfare now have money to spend. Just giving it to them would do the same, just as retirees’ pension checks stimulate private-sector employment (at least they do in this state!), but too many idiots would raise moral/ideological objections, so . . .