Please specify the metrics that you are using, because we’ve already demonstrated that GDP and the Dow responded remarkably to the New Deal prior to the build up to our participation in WWII. So when you say that it did “little or nothing”, what evidence do you have to support that assertion? Anything?
In terms of jobs creation, the pre-WWII New Deal saw the largest drop in unemployment rate in the country’s history, second only to that during WWII under Roosevelt. If you look at it in terms of percentage change under presidents, those two period flip-flop, but all that means is that pre-WWII New Deal policies yielded the second best percentage change in unemployment.
Huh? What are the big differences between ‘do gooder’ programs and ‘huge expansion of the wartime economy’? Certainly not something that affects the GDP since it rose at about the same pace following the New Deal until the end of WWII.
The unemployment statistics are estimated, and could be inaccurate. So I’m sure you’ll agree that the unemployment rate may have actually been lower than than the estimated number.
Let me get this straight. Do you think the Hoover unemployment numbers were even worse than shown, because of people dropping out of the labor force? Or were they optimistic until FDR came in and said he actually cared, and then they dropped out of the labor force, resulting in the drop in unemployment shown?
I think it rather more likely that you refuse to look at the facts because they get in the way of your ideology.
Well aside from opinions that WWII did not end the Great Depression, or that deficit spending didn’t actually work, do you think you found an answer? Your question seems to rely on dicto simpliciter equating WWII with all deficit spending. So deficit spending could be a solution for a stalled economy in some circumstances, but not necessarily all. I don’t see the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan doing a lot for the economy right now.
The “Great Depression I and II” was caused by a contraction in the money supply. The consequent deflation caused the massive unemployment. FDR’s “New Deal” attempted to stimulate the economy (via deficit spending) but this DID NOT work.
The advent of WWII ended the depression, because the government incresed the money supply, which allowed the economy to restart-this was accompanied by low inflation (because there was little production of civilian goods, and 12.5 million americans were drafted into the armed forces).
This is why Obama’s kindergarden crew (Geithner, Bernancke, etc.) will not be successful with these enormous “stimulus” spending debacles-these amount (mostly) to creating worthless government jobs (like the census).
No improvement will come until demand increases-which all of Obama’s “programs” will not achive.
Oh my good gravy! Why can’t people specify what it is they are pointing to when they make such conclusions?
IT DID NOT WORK based on _____________.
Listen, I’m perfectly willling to buy an argument that it didn’t work, or didn’t work enough, or that a certain milestone was not met until after WWII, but you’re going to have to tell me what that milestone is, and why it’s a reasonable milestone to mark whatever you think it marks.
But you cannot keep fucking repeating a mantra that “IT DID NOT WORK” without saying anything about how you define DID NOT WORK.
First, let’s define “DID NOT WORK.” You haven’t identified what you would consider to be the milestone or benchmark for working. To me, a reduction from about 25% to about 15% in a span of about four years is WORKING PRETTY GODDAMN WELL.
Tell me why you think a 10% reduction over about 4 years is NOT WORKING, please.
Secondly, what do you mean “my own admission.” I’m not sold on the 15% figure, since I believe that it counts among the unemployed those who were actually employed as part of a workfare program. Using government money to employ people was part of the damn point, so I believe that unemployment by 1937 was about 10%. See here:
I had a world history class a year or so ago that briefly touched on this topic. The instructor had an interesting take on this. According to him, the New Deal and WWII kind of helped the depression, but what really ended it and led to the boom afterwords was the Marshall Plan. Basically, the U.S. sent a bunch of money to Europe to help it rebuild after the war. Part of their reasoning was that it would be easier for Communists to sow the seeds of dissension and unrest (and set up Communist satellite governments loyal to the Soviet Union) if Western Europe remained in ruins. A lot of the Marshall Plan money came right back to the U.S. in return for the machinery, tooling, etc. needed for rebuilding. Kind of like a big economic stimulus. It has been a while since this class so I might be kind of fuzzy on some of the details.