So now that we are one quarter away from a double dip...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

Did the new deal lead us out of the depression or not???

---

I believe it delayed the recovery myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

So you're saying that Govt invested.. Becuase they were the purchasers in that time, not the investors.

They did invest in weaponry, but the boom was sparked not by investments but by purchasing of goods for the war. Pointless statement.

---

No, the government invested in stimulating the economy. As I already mentioned a couple of times, one of the stimuli programs implemented paid private investors bonuses for hiring more people. It basically allowed investors to hire with little to no risk, and basically paid training for the new employees.

That you fail to acknowledge that stimulative programs like that took place doesn't mean that they didn't happen.

If you actually paid attention to the graphs you posted, unemployment actually started to decline *before* the war started. Obviously, the war helped to accelerate the process much more. Due to the exceptional circumstances, it allowed the government to stop looking at the deficit and go on a spending spree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

Did the new deal lead us out of the depression or not???

---

No, obviously not. Turns out much more spending was required to get us out of the recession.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Last week i was shopping on SoCo (in AUstin, TX) with my mom before lunch She bought a small Josefina (Aguilar) thing at the Turquoise Door. At a nearby third-worldish bric-a-brac place, I saw a poster. Sort of a government propaganda thingy. It looked South Asian. It exhorted people to eat right, pay their debts, practice sexual fidelity, and shun all violence and intoxicants -- and all unnecessary purchases. (One or more of these is unapplicable to modern Americans.)

It may take awhile for our hard edged libertarian culture to reign itself in, having been raised on a steady regime of more or less orgiastic consumption.

---

'Liberty without responsibility isn't liberty,' or what not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Thats easy. Buy property at least 40 miles from a major urban center. Put in fences, wells, irrigation, house, rain collection system as a fallback, plant orchards, gardens, grazing for hogs, goats, etc. stockpile lots of guns and ammo. Have a core group of competent productive people that will retreat to the compound when the shit hits the fan and defend it to the death.

Ooops, already doing that.

---

Bingo. If youre smart, you should know the end of this country is near. Be prepared, I say.

Of course, nowadays "liberty" has been circumscribed to mean the right to fuck whoever you want, to pay low taxes, or to watch football and drink beer. Perhaps this country deserves to go bankrupt and endure some actual strife for once to appreciate what true liberty it had.

Two peices of legislation passed by FDR were the Agricultural Adjustment ACT and the National Recovery act.

His advisors thougth that the depression was caused by too much competition.LOL!!
So his policies were inadvertantly and sometimes purposely aimed at limiting production.

The AAA accomplished this.

1. The act immediately was set out to destroy livestock like pigs and reduce breeding sows to maintain high prices for farmers.

2. Farmers of cotton were paid to plow only a quarter of their production so that they could maintain the price of cotton high.


The NRA accomplished this:

1.Set out to standardize investments, cost and production.

2. The codes they produced rose prices and cut production.

3. Many buisinesses then had to drop out for failure to comply with codes and in essence cartelized many industrys.


But just as bad was the Wagner act which forced workers to join unions if the unions won a majority vote in a company. This led to the inflation prices of consumer goods.

The first two acts were repealed or judged as unconstitutional, and then you saw a mini recovery in '37 followed by a depression with in the depression.

FDR's New deal did nothing to alleviate the mess.

The spike in the market in 39 was not due to the new deals policies but because of the rise of commodities in the beggining of ww2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

My error is that I attributed the cuts to Truman, Truman actually did advocate the total implementation of FRR's new deal. Congress were the one's who said no, and they did away with his initiatives and proposals.

Congress then enacted these things:

1. Limited the Corporate "excess" tax from 90% to 38 %

2. Passed the Revenue Act of 1945

3.lowered income taxes.

4. Cut FDR's price controls by 1946.

5. Cut spending for SS, federal housing, cut the full employment act.

These were the policies that spurred the boom of the post war period, not the new deal nor the artificial war boom.

---

You keep missing the point. The reason Congress could do all that was that we were no longer in a recession. Consumer confidence was up again, unemployment near a record low, there was pent-up demand for goods, prices were going up again (to the point of fairly big inflation in '46, followed by more mild inflation in '47 and '48). We were effectively out of the recession by then. So the extraordinary measures to get to that point were not necessary anymore. So obviously, they were done away with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

I leave you with this...

http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-8251-0-5-5--.html

Mr. Folsom, a professor of history at Hillsdale College, is the author of "New Deal or Raw Deal?" (Simon & Schuster, 2008). Mrs. Folsom is director of Hillsdale College's annual Free Market Forum

---

That's correct. Truman had to wait for a Republican Congress to have price controls and rationing in place again (which is actually ironic because by that time, Truman didn't want those things implemented anymore).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

Bingo. If youre smart, you should know the end of this country is near. Be prepared, I say.

---

Like I said in another thread, another option I'm looking at is moving to Belize. Sell, the business, commercial property, house, ranch, the whole nine yards. Bank the cash and move. The only problem is Belize currency is pegged to the dollar. Actually, thats not the only problem. I'm not sure I could convince the wife to go off the grid, especially with grandbabys in the states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Of course, nowadays "liberty" has been circumscribed to mean the right to fuck whoever you want, to pay low taxes, or to watch football and drink beer. Perhaps this country deserves to go bankrupt and endure some actual strife for once to appreciate what true liberty it had.

---

Probably. No pain no gain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

No, the government invested in stimulating the economy. As I already mentioned a couple of times, one of the stimuli programs implemented paid private investors bonuses for hiring more people. It basically allowed investors to hire with little to no risk, and basically paid training for the new employees.

---

Which program was that? I want to research it.

Quote:

---

That you fail to acknowledge that stimulative programs like that took place doesn't mean that they didn't happen.

If you actually paid attention to the graphs you posted, unemployment actually started to decline *before* the war started. Obviously, the war helped to accelerate the process much more. Due to the exceptional circumstances, it allowed the government to stop looking at the deficit and go on a spending spree.

---

You keep bringing this up, and i keep reminding you that the cause of the spike in economic activity had nothing to do with the new deal and all to do with commidity demand because of the outset of ww2.

It's like you're not willing to concede that and you want to parrot that.

Run that statement again and I will just cut and paste this response until you awnser it directly instead of dodging it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

Two peices of legislation passed by FDR were the Agricultural Adjustment ACT and the National Recovery act.

His advisors thougth that the depression was caused by too much competition.LOL!!
So his policies were inadvertantly and sometimes purposely aimed at limiting production.

The AAA accomplished this.

1. The act immediately was set out to destroy livestock like pigs and reduce breeding sows to maintain high prices for farmers.

2. Farmers of cotton were paid to plow only a quarter of their production so that they could maintain the price of cotton high.


The NRA accomplished this:

1.Set out to standardize investments, cost and production.

2. The codes they produced rose prices and cut production.

3. Many buisinesses then had to drop out for failure to comply with codes and in essence cartelized many industrys.


But just as bad was the Wagner act which forced workers to join unions if the unions won a majority vote in a company. This led to the inflation prices of consumer goods.

The first two acts were repealed or judged as unconstitutional, and then you saw a mini recovery in '37 followed by a depression with in the depression.

FDR's New deal did nothing to alleviate the mess.

The spike in the market in 39 was not due to the new deals policies but because of the rise of commodities in the beggining of ww2.

---

Now you're cherry picking.

This is the reality: By 1937 all economic indicators were back to pre-recession era, except for unemployment which was the big boogeyman. By the end of 1938, after the second new deal, unemployment started to go down (again, look at your own chart). The war certainly accelerated both the spending and the recovery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._1910-1960.gif


when total spending dropped, in theory the unemployment rate should have gone back to the upper teens like in the 30's but instead it remained healthy with less spending.

---

If you look at this graphy you will see that unemployment was spiking back up again from 1943-45, the war was coming to a close and unemployment was spiking up just like in the begining stages of the depression.. So no, Truman nor congress were thinking that they were out of the clear.

Remember this unemployment was going on before the end of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Roosevelt died before the end of ww2. iF anything, If investors truly were gaining confidence it was because FDR died. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Now you're cherry picking.

This is the reality: By 1937 all economic indicators were back to pre-recession era, except for unemployment which was the big boogeyman. By the end of 1938, after the second new deal, unemployment started to go down (again, look at your own chart). The war certainly accelerated both the spending and the recovery.

---

You know why there was a mini recovery.. because of the repeal of those New Deal programs LOL!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

If you look at this graphy you will see that unemployment was spiking back up again from 1943-45, the war was coming to a close and unemployment was spiking up just like in the begining stages of the depression.. So no, Truman nor congress were thinking that they were out of the clear.

Remember this unemployment was going on before the end of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Roosevelt died before the end of ww2. iF anything, If investors truly were gaining confidence it was because FDR died. :lol

---

Uhm... that's not much of a "spike".... if you look at the rise from 43-45, it was just raising to "normal" levels. The extremely low level of unemployment in 1941/42 was an anomaly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

Which program was that? I want to research it.

---

Google "cost-plus contracts". Ford made a shitload of money with it. It's still even used today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

You keep bringing this up, and i keep reminding you that the cause of the spike in economic activity had nothing to do with the new deal and all to do with commidity demand because of the outset of ww2.

---

Demand was only part of the equation. I do give credit to the increased demand. You simply don't want to give credit to the increased spending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

It's like you're not willing to concede that and you want to parrot that.

---

But I did give credit to demand. It's you that keep on parroting that it was the only reason for any economic activity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

Run that statement again and I will just cut and paste this response until you awnser it directly instead of dodging it.

---

You can do whatever you want. I'm not here to convince you of anything. Numbers simply contradict what you're saying, that's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Uhm... that's not much of a "spike".... if you look at the rise from 43-45, it was just raising to "normal" levels. The extremely low level of unemployment in 1941/42 was an anomaly.

---

Right. It was going back to pre-recession levels. Pretty evident if you're not looking with rose colored glasses and looking for an excuse...

Honestly El nono, i don't think i've ever met anyone who said the Depression ended in 1937.. that's a new one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

Honestly El nono, i don't think i've ever met anyone who said the Depression ended in 1937.. that's a new one.

---

Well, if you look at your graph, they shouldn't be saying that. They should be saying it ended around 1941, because that's when levels went back to the historical "norm".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

Honestly El nono, i don't think i've ever met anyone who said the Depression ended in 1937.. that's a new one.

---

But it didn't. The turnaround was between '40-'43... You know, stuff like that doesn't happen overnight... I actually think it took only 3 years because of the war. Otherwise it would have taken longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Well, if you look at your graph, they shouldn't be saying that. They should be saying it ended around 1941, because that's when levels went back to the historical "norm".

---

Well.. you compare a crash in 1920 that lasted a year, and a one in 1929 that lasted more than a decade.. I don't see how you could say that spending is better than inaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

But it didn't. The turnaround was between '40-'43... You know, stuff like that doesn't happen overnight... I actually think it took only 3 years because of the war. Otherwise it would have taken longer.

---

The 1920 crash only lasted a year and with no major spending and inaction of the FED reserve, the Hoover programs, and it's expansion by way of the NEW deal took 8x as long.. why is that??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

Well.. you compare a crash in 1920 that lasted a year, and a one in 1929 that lasted more than a decade.. I don't see how you could say that spending is better than inaction.

---

Perhaps; I'm not an economist. I was just pointing out that your graph didn't really show a spike, but a return to relative normalcy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

The 1920 crash only lasted a year and with no major spending and inaction of the FED reserve, the Hoover programs, and it's expansion by way of the NEW deal took 8x as long.. why is that??

---

Completely different crashes though. The 1920 crash was related to bad economic policy from the Fed (raising interest rates to 7%), the major increase in of labor force since the WWI ended, and the fact that fiat money was a fairly new development, and people expected a deflation (due to the gold standard, which always followed inflation with deflation).

You couldn't possibly say that there was no intervention from the Fed. As soon as the Fed went back down from 7% to 4.5% interest rates, the deflation was over.

The Great Depression was a completely different animal. The consumers lost complete trust in the system after the bank runs. Regaining trust after so many people lost so much money takes a long, long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It may take awhile for our hard edged libertarian culture to reign itself in, having been raised on a steady regime of more or less orgiastic consumption.

---

Libertarianism, as I understand it, allows for personal indulgences with personal responsibility. As I see it, true libertarians already "reign themselves" in. It's liberals, who expect the tax payers, to make up for their failures in responsibility.