And your point is?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.
And your point is?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.
One thing I've never understood. If the New Deal prolonged the Depression, how did WW2, which was even more restrictions on the economy and more government spending, end it?
It was the Fed shrinking the money supply in a recession. This turned a recession into a depression.
I think that would depend on the government program in questionFrankly there were a good many causes to it, but I would say a close study of Hoover's and Congress's bungled attempts at intervention shows they did a lot to make it worse. Did some of the intervention help people in the immediate circumstance put food on their family tables, find work, and so on? Yes, but it is beginning to be increasingly understood that the trade-off was a much longer recovery time.
Again, if you look back through history at the Panics, which were more or less the same thing, the response had always been a hands-off approach, and recovery had always been quick and relatively smooth, so the idea that letting things stabilize naturally somehow caused things to get worse just does not match the evidence of history.
I think that would depend on the government program in question
As said by others, the new deal was a mixed bag: some programs helped the recovery, others didn't
price fixing on goods probably didn't help: ending the gold standard and handing out bonuses to WWI veterans did
Most economists agree that the bonus bill was helpfulI personally don't agree with detaching the Dollar from gold, but that's a separate debate I think. As to the other, I have already said some aspects of the New Deal did help people in the moment, but more economists lately have begun to come aboard with the idea that overall, it prolonged the nation's suffering.
In the previous recessions the approach had always been largely hands-off, and recovery had typically been swift. Could some manner of aid have been provided to help people? Yes. Was the whole package necessary or any help to the country? I'd say not really.
Detaching the dollar from the gold was what brought stability to the global economy: a flexible monetary policy greatly lowered the variance coming from business cyclesI personally don't agree with detaching the Dollar from gold
If one guy was vice chair of UCLA's department of economics, it is interesting. If he later went out into the wild blue yonder and, say, adopted rather extreme Austrian views, well, I'm willing to give the guy somewhat of a hearing even though I've been through this before.And your point is?
I think you are misrepresenting consensus among economists: most economists agree that certain parts of the new deal was helpful for the recovery and others not.
Which economists are you reading?That is not the impression I have had from my own research, but your mileage of course may vary. As to the bonus bill? If memory serves that essentially extended benefits to WWI veterans early, and yes, that was a good idea.
Please take a look at the data point of the 1873 Panic and the "Long Depression" which followed:. . . In the previous recessions the approach had always been largely hands-off, and recovery had typically been swift. . .
Symptoms like the Stock Market Crash that started it all?
The Stock Market crashed in October 1928, the tariffs were implemented in June 1930- that's nearly two years of free market fundamentalism.
The traditional argument is that the massive influx of new jobs for war production did it. I've heard that one argued both ways. Frankly I think it was more of the same. Yes it fed people, but it didn't end the overall issue.
Frankly there were a good many causes to it, but I would say a close study of Hoover's and Congress's bungled attempts at intervention shows they did a lot to make it worse. Did some of the intervention help people in the immediate circumstance put food on their family tables, find work, and so on? Yes, but it is beginning to be increasingly understood that the trade-off was a much longer recovery time.
Again, if you look back through history at the Panics, which were more or less the same thing, the response had always been a hands-off approach, and recovery had always been quick and relatively smooth, so the idea that letting things stabilize naturally somehow caused things to get worse just does not match the evidence of history.
The Stock Market crashed in October 1928, the tariffs were implemented in June 1930- that's nearly two years of free market fundamentalism.
And your point is?
Alright, maybe 1873 should be referred to as the six year Depression and the slow recovery, which still sounds real serious!https://books.google.com/books?id=d... stampeded toward the Gold Standard."&f=false
' . . . After 1870, most countries stampeded toward the Gold Standard. . . . To deepen the gold reserves, the rule was to tighten lending and currency in circulation. . . . toward a disconcerting deflation until 1896. . . . '
' . . . After the so-called "Long Depression" from 1873 to 1879, a low intensity economic progress lasted until 1896. This paltry rise was lacerated with financial crises. . . . '
Really? You're evidently unfamiliar with real academia. From Linus Pauling's vitamin C obsession to David Irving's Holocaust denial and Steven Koonin's denial of the reality of anthropomorphic climate change.You don't get into such high positions by being crackpots and not having an idea of what you're talking about.
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.
One thing I've never understood. If the New Deal prolonged the Depression, how did WW2, which was even more restrictions on the economy and more government spending, end it?