No New Deal/WWII, how long until US recover from Great Depression

The general consensus nowadays among mainstream economists is that the New Deal was a mixed bag in resolving the Great Depression. Some of the efforts helped improve the economy, while others such as the work codes and pricing structures were counter-productive. It was an effort that basically tried a lot of different ideas and see what worked.
It is really hard to say when the Great Depression would have ended without the New Deal because if FDR had not tried it, the next President would have tried similar actions. Without WWII, it probably would have taken until the mid-1940s for the economy to rebound.
Indeed. The situation is, unsurprisingly to those who see beyond thirty-second soundbites, complicated.
NIRA, for example, was a mistake.
 

Iron Sun

Banned
again, this is from what i've heard, and Information i've gathered from listening to people over the years and from Prager Universitie's videos on the topics and from the thread
mckayla-maroney-pissed.jpg
 
. . . but he started drawing up war plans as he believed a WAR was necessary to rebuild the economy(Note, please fact check this). . .
People at the time wanted to believe FDR at least knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, because they very much wanted to believe they with the Atlantic and Pacific oceans America was safe. So, there were rumors.

But per best available evidence, no, FDR did not know about Pearl Harbor in advance.
 
Two of your "sources" are libertarian propaganda outlets. The third is a press release for an article by two fringe economists with ties to those organisations and other libertarian groups. Theirs is by no means a mainstream or majority opinion, in fact it's anything but. Having perused their article I find it unconvincing and deeply flawed.

Kinda weird to call Lee E. Ohanian fringe, when he was the vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. Cole was also a Professor at UCLA as well as a consultant to the Federal Reserve, it should be noted.
 

QueerSpear

Banned

Pikachu_laughing.gif


Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt. Hoover, a Republican, was the successor to Coolidge, a President known for doing NOTHING, which is why America, and by extension the world, did so well economically. when the crash happened

America and by extension the rest of the world did so well because the US was a debtholder whom was recieving millions from the UK and France, along with having its economic infrastructure intact after the end of the war. That, along with trade with a devastated Europe, allowed the US to thrive.

Hoover, a Republican, was the successor to Coolidge, a President known for doing NOTHING

Coolidge raised tariffs.

which is why America, and by extension the world, did so well economically. when the crash happened, rather than do nothing and let America right itself, and being an Engineer, tried to fix the problem... and Failed, creating the depression.

Hoover was a non-interventionist and did nothing to aliviate the economy, being a firm believer in "rugged individualism" and the mythological free enterprise, thus allowing thousands of businesses to go bankrupt and millions to lose their jobs.

Roosevelt, an old Left(not like today's new left) Democrat, believing in big government, expanded the Governemnt to try to fix it.

A historical trivia, FDR ran in 1932 as a fiscal conservative and accused the free market fundamentalist Hoover of being a socialist which is nonsense. Also FDR implemented fiscal conservative policies in 1937 which was what triggered the 1938 Recession which only ended when he reversed the fiscal conservative policies and re-implemented progressive policies.

elieving in big government, expanded the Governemnt to try to fix it.

What nonsense.

During the first two years of his first term, FDR was a standard American School of Economics president , with the major difference being that FDR opposed tariffs. It was only after the 1934 midterms, under increasing pressure from grassroots progressive organizations that he implemented the Second New Deal. Not that progressive pressure prevented FDR from implementing disastrous conservative policies in 1937 which directly lead to the recession the following year.

but he started drawing up war plans as he believed a WAR was necessary to rebuild the economy(Note, please fact check this). his policies tied with this believe meant america didn't recover... till war broke out in 1942. it took till at least late 1945 for the economy to reach a high level peace time economy.

This is nothing more than a crazy conspiracy.

so, if Coolidge had run again, since he never meddled with the economy, i believe America would have fixed itself and put itself back on the track it belonged on by the time the rest of the world recovered, which could have been even earlier.

If Coolidge had run, he would have made no difference. Both Coolidge and Hoover were free market fundamentalists who supported high tariffs.
 

QueerSpear

Banned
I thought tariffs went against the idea of a free market.

Free market does not mean free trade.

Free market means that the government does not interfere in market relations but trade is a foreing policy issue because it requires a trade deal between two nations. For example for Coca Cola to be able to sell theirs products in India there is need of existing a trade deal between the Indian and US governments because otherwise India can raise tariffs on Coca Cola or even seize Coca Cola products arriving at their ports, without compensation.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Free market does not mean free trade.

Free market means that the government does not interfere in market relations but trade is a foreing policy issue because it requires a trade deal between two nations. For example for Coca Cola to be able to sell theirs products in India there is need of existing a trade deal between the Indian and US governments because otherwise India can raise tariffs on Coca Cola or even seize Coca Cola products arriving at their ports, without compensation.
free market means precisely free trade: if the market determines that it's better or cheaper to buy foreign goods than domestically produced ones then by definition a free market would allow buying of foreign goods. tariffs does not exist in the absence of government intervention
 

QueerSpear

Banned
free market means precisely free trade: if the market determines that it's better or cheaper to buy foreign goods than domestically produced ones then by definition a free market would allow buying of foreign goods. tariffs does not exist in the absence of government intervention

No tariffs is government policy towards other governments, towards other states. Also the market does not determine anything, particularly because capitalism is depedent on artifical scarcity caused on purpose.
 

RousseauX

Donor
No tariffs is government policy towards other governments, towards other states.
Not really, the people who pay tariffs are private individuals and firms

tariffs are artificial barriers imposed to stop or alter economic transactions between two parties by imposing a cost on said transaction, that's pretty much the definition of the state intervening in the free market
 

QueerSpear

Banned
Not really, the people who pay tariffs are private individuals and firms

tariffs are artificial barriers imposed to stop or alter economic transactions between two parties by imposing a cost on said transaction, that's pretty much the definition of the state intervening in the free market

No it isn't- tariffs are specifically targeted at one specific country. A perfect example is Trump's idiotic plans to raise tariffs on Chinese products- because most of those products are owned by American companies but they would pay a tariff because they were made in China.
 

RousseauX

Donor
No it isn't- tariffs are specifically targeted at one specific country. A perfect example is Trump's idiotic plans to raise tariffs on Chinese products- because most of those products are owned by American companies but they would pay a tariff because they were made in China.
right, so they are paid by privately owned firms, the Chinese government doesn't pay the tariffs

the US government is imposing a tax on private companies for making their goods in china instead of america even though it's cheaper to make goods in china

we can argue about whether this is good or bad: but this is about as clear of a case as the government intervening to change market determined outcomes as possible
 

Hunter W.

Banned
No it didn't. That's a standard bogus attack based on ignorance of historical facts.

It was the failed policies of the Hoover administration based around the free market which turned a nasty recession into a depression, leading to thousands of businesses going bankrupt and the loss of millions of jobs. The so called Roosevelt Recession was triggered when FDR implemented fiscal conservative policies- indeed that the 1938 Recession is a perfect example of how useless fiscal conservatism is.

FDR raised taxes to balance the budget and the Federal Reserve implemented a contractionary policy (that is, the amount of money being spend was lower than the amount of tax revenue. Contractionary policies are implemented when you attempt for instance to pay off the debt or balance a budget). It was only when FDR reversed policies, increased the public works programs while the Reserve reversed the contractionary policies and eased credit.

It most certainly wasn't free-market policies that caused the depression. While the symptoms were themselves caused by the excesses of capitalism, the thing that got the ball going was the tariffs and raising taxes, and cutting spending. On both accounts this probably influenced the tanking economic confidence and banking crisis caused by the loss of confidence. As the individuals on this thread from 2004 mentioned, a recession akin to 1893 (maybe 14% unemployment) turned into a economic tragedy.

While both sides can argue about the causes and consequences, it is plainly obvious to us laymen that Roosevelt was a man of the amount of played his cards very well. He was a brilliant leader.
 
Last edited:
I think debates around U.S. 'libertarianism' (different in Europe!) make for some heck of some interesting conversations! :)

I tend to come down on the side that markets work well in some circumstances, but not others, and I want the messy facts and details about why sometimes more one than the other.

As above, recovery from depression can be slow. Ol' John Manyard Keynes talked about how a new equilibrium can be reached at a point well below maximum productive capacity. So, I'm all in favor of deficit spending with a combo of tax cuts and public works to get the economy moving again. Just like a seasoned poker player, the question is how much.
 
No tariffs is government policy towards other governments, towards other states. Also the market does not determine anything, particularly because capitalism is depedent on artifical scarcity caused on purpose.

No, scarcity is a result of the universe not containing infinite resources. If anything , centralized planning causes artificial scarcity. If the planning commission doesn't like X than X won't be made no matter how useful it is.
 
Top