Whose history are you reading?

[Palouser]

I'll cut right to the chase on this one. The Great Depression did not start with Roosevelt. It started with Hoover (who was a great man in my esitmation) who did nothing for  three years about the Depression. It was well entrenched. So, why didn't we heal ourselves since we were not NEARLY as dependent on the instantaneous systems and global entertwining of economies as we are now? There are books written about Roosevelts efforts and some notable commentaries on what happened when efforts to reduce spending on job creation and money supply resulted in downturns in the economy.

But the PROOF is that war IS a government program! Lock stock and barrel. We went into the severest debt ever in relation to our GDP. We popped out of Depression building Lend Lease supplies for Britian and the allies by 1940. Economically we GAVE this materiel to our allies. We could have built ALL the planes, tanks, supplies food, done all the training, etc. and BURIED it all in a big hole w/o the deaths of millions and the vast destruction and had the same results (or better). When we entered the war we were under a command economy directed from the top down. We then spent scads MORE money rebuilding Europe from the ground up! 

So let's quit pretending that spending can't rejuvenate an economy in trouble. Please! You just proved the case!

[Nebrfarmr]

This is marketing, not the 'arguing' forum, so I'll say my piece, and drop it.

I did not say that Roosevelt started the Great Depression.  I merely asked which government social program he enacted, helped cure it.  Answer:  Not much of any, for all the money they spent, they did little if anything to cut unemployment.  FDR did enstate some good safeguards, but that was more of a prevention of re-occurance, than it was a recovery aid.

If the US would have built all the machines of war, and then buried them, the results would not have been the same.  What pulled the US economy forward, and helped pay down the war debt, was the rebuilding.  The only major power in the world, that had a manufacturing base that was at full capacity at the end of the war, was the United States.  The war itself, got the factories running, producing war goods, but it cut unemployment by running up amounts of debt unseen before that time (sound familiar).  The only reason that there was a long-lasting economic boom, was because so much of the rest of the world needed rebuilding, and the US was in a position, with the factories and healthy workers, to be able to do it.  Ironically, it was the loss of so many able-bodies, that provided many of the job openings for the ones that were left.

Lastly, I did not say 'spending' will not stimulate the economy.   It will.  BUT, will spending all this money, that we do not have, be helpful, or harmful in the long run?

To re-quote FDR's Treasury Secretary, Henry Morganthau:   “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.”

Again, tell me, what social program spending cured the unemployment that occured because of the Great Depression? 

[jrsiajdranch]

Talk about Whose History are you reading? ......... COme on now. Pal that is just over the top.  Hoover did nothing?????

Even so, New Dealer Rexford Tugwell^[95] later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."

Or maybe you never heard of the Hoover dam?  ALso he enacted the largest Tax increase ever on the American populace and he also favored Smoot-Hawley which probably did more to entrench the Economic Mailaise of the day. 

I am sure you would Like Hoover he is the same as Mitt is today.  Speaks well, able to have a persona of Business sense and efficiency.

Lets face it Roosevelt took all of Hoovers dumbest ideas and doubled down on them.

As to your war Statement that Has ben true since the begining of Civilization. However The Economy never rejuvinated to the level of the time from about 1890-1928.

[Palouser]

The argument is basically - how much spending does it take to stimulate an economy when it has been hit by world class failure? It's also why ALL politiciands are Kensyians when economic calamity strikes. Hoover correctly did not do nothing, but in comparison to the problems did comparatively little. Roosevelt did more, at least in fits and starts, and not always on a continuous basis. One argument is he did not do enough, and in fact, held back from the advice of some of his advisors. The case of WWII argues that Roosevelt and others were wrong. More needed to be done. 

That is NOT to say that government stimulus is sustainable or healthy once an economy begins to get some legs. This Great Recession is an almost ironclad proof that the curtailing of regulation, specifically in the area of finance, is a recipe for disaster. Greenspan, deluded Randian that he was, saw the light after it was too late (though I would argue all Randian's are essentially deluded, as was Rand herself). Randism is essentially a belief system and a philosophy based on ideals that don't exist.

The years following the war are considered some of the greatest economically. And rebuilding was a part of it, though the 50's are unjustly glorified in some ways, and under rated in others.

BUT, no matter how you cut it, rebuilding was totally a matter of government stimulus and programs, whether administered here or in Europe. It allowed the flow of currency and exchange that provided fertile ground for private enterprise to regrow and become dominant, a lesson Russia ignored and China finally adopted. The most recent example is  Germany's still unfinished rejuvenation of the former East Germany's reintegration. And yet they are the powerhouse of Europe and the globe's 3rd largest exporte of goods, most of it related to high technology.

The idea government intervention in economic crisis can't be positive is simply an undefendable position, even if it can easily believed as ideology.

[Palouser]

...... we spent ALL that money and incurred ALL that debt from a government program called WWII and we came out of the devestation with flying colors. You really have to admit that it demolishes the idea that stimulus is a one way road to a trap you can't escape from. Yes, we did it because we had to. It still remains true that it worked.

[sw363535]

Wow,, I am impressed------great thought for a bunch of number crunchers.  🙂

Thanks ---------------------one thing I would like to add.  On the subject of  proper federal regulation.   

It seems to me that over simplification happens in blanket statements------and both sides have a point and miss a point.

There are things that government is needs to regulate like, banking, utilities, monopolys, transportation....(there is an end to that list).

The rub has come because it appears that our government in its rush to utopia, has decided to deregulate those areas and grab onto the simple-------- nutrition, education, health, communication, entertainment, air, water, pets, sports, cosmetic surgery(well that might sidetrack the thought)------but I hope you understand the point.  I think there are those of us who want less regulation and some who want more, and we are both right.  Regulation has just lost focus and direction-------maybe we stopped teaching economics and decided political science and a law degree was enough.  

Anyway thanks --------- good thoughts-------------I am going to slip out now and get back to the "bean" counting before one of you brings out a test.

🙂