FDR's leftist policies deepened and extended the Great Depression

Started by RichClem

This political chat room is for you to sound off about any political ideology and discuss current political topics. Everyone is welcome, yes, even conservatives, but keep in mind, the nature of the No Holds Barred political chat forum platform can be friendly to trolling. It is your responsibility to address this wisely. Forum Rules

Next
232 replies to this topic Sticky this thread

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 15 Jan 2014, 2:38 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,451.01

Log in or register to remove this ad..
FDR's leftist policies deepened and extended the Great Depression.

As most economists now agree.
Which is why liberals avoid their opinions and cite historians, social activists or political commentators instead. Why not cite plumbers or auto mechanics? :clap:

How Government Prolonged the Depression
Policies that decreased competition in product and labor markets were especially destructive.

... the New Deal didn't restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office. Total hours worked per adult, including government employees, were 18% below their 1929 level between 1930-32, but were 23% lower on average during the New Deal (1933-39). Private hours worked were even lower after FDR took office, averaging 27% below their 1929 level, compared to 18% lower between in 1930-32.

Even comparing hours worked at the end of 1930s to those at the beginning of FDR's presidency doesn't paint a picture of recovery. Total hours worked per adult in 1939 remained about 21% below their 1929 level, compared to a decline of 27% in 1933. And it wasn't just work that remained scarce during the New Deal. Per capita consumption did not recover at all, remaining 25% below its trend level throughout the New Deal, and per-capita nonresidential investment averaged about 60% below trend. The Great Depression clearly continued long after FDR took office....

Why wasn't the Depression followed by a vigorous recovery, like every other cycle? It should have been. The economic fundamentals that drive all expansions were very favorable during the New Deal. Productivity grew very rapidly after 1933, the price level was stable, real interest rates were low, and liquidity was plentiful. We have calculated on the basis of just productivity growth that employment and investment should have been back to normal levels by 1936. Similarly, Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas and Leonard Rapping calculated on the basis of just expansionary Federal Reserve policy that the economy should have been back to normal by 1935.

So what stopped a blockbuster recovery from ever starting? The New Deal. Some New Deal policies certainly benefited the economy by establishing a basic social safety net through Social Security and unemployment benefits, and by stabilizing the financial system through deposit insurance and the Securities Exchange Commission. But others violated the most basic economic principles by suppressing competition, and setting prices and wages in many sectors well above their normal levels. All told, these antimarket policies choked off powerful recovery forces that would have plausibly returned the economy back to trend by the mid-1930s.

The most damaging policies were those at the heart of the recovery plan, including The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which tossed aside the nation's antitrust acts and permitted industries to collusively raise prices provided that they shared their newfound monopoly rents with workers by substantially raising wages well above underlying productivity growth. The NIRA covered over 500 industries, ranging from autos and steel, to ladies hosiery and poultry production. Each industry created a code of "fair competition" which spelled out what producers could and could not do, and which were designed to eliminate "excessive competition" that FDR believed to be the source of the Depression.

These codes distorted the economy by artificially raising wages and prices, restricting output, and reducing productive capacity by placing quotas on industry investment in new plants and equipment....

By the late 1930s, New Deal policies did begin to reverse, which coincided with the beginning of the recovery. ...

Mr. Cole is professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Ohanian is professor of economics and director of the Ettinger Family Program in Macroeconomic Research at UCLA.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 6749137485
0
Log in or register to remove this ad..

Profundum Disputatio's Photo
Posted by Profundum Disputatio
  0 15 Jan 2014, 2:38 pm

Profundum Disputatio


User avatar
Posted by golfboy
  48,014 15 Jan 2014, 2:42 pm

golfboy Liberal Anti-Matter
User avatar
      
      

Posts: 51,295
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Money: 48,013.72



What's the reason for this "profundum disputatio" post to an identical thread?
0
ES » 07 Oct 2014 11:23 am wrote:
I've been doing face plants before your lies ever darkened any political forum.

Cannonpointer » 15 Oct 2014 10:46 am wrote:
Facts suck when you're a progressive.

Technocrat » 04 Sep 2014 12:15 pm wrote:
British invented English, you know.
:die:

User avatar
Posted by Misty
  23,797 15 Jan 2014, 2:50 pm

Misty Nevertheless, she persisted.
User avatar
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator

Posts: 21,959
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 23,796.75



golfboy » 15 Jan 2014 1:42 pm wrote:
What's the reason for this "profundum disputatio" post to an identical thread?

That takes you to where the thread is located in the Profundum Disputatio room, where you can have a serious debate about this subject.
Good luck with that, seeing as how this is one of Clem's threads.
He's not interested in any kind of debate. All he cares about his shoving his right wing Op-Ed pieces, like the one in the OP, down our throats.
0
Image

User avatar
Posted by Bigsky
  883 15 Jan 2014, 2:55 pm

Bigsky User avatar
      
      

Posts: 19,950
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Money: 882.69




it seems to me that the WPA, TVA, and maybe the CCC were not bad ideas..i actually like the idea of the FDIC...the term p"rovide for the general welfare" has a meaning..and i think this is what is meant by it...infrastructure...i would not appose obama making everyone taking welfare to do community service to receive it...so i cant really bitch about the CCC...part of the reason that the great depression was so long lasting was because of other social programs...but you cant forget about the dust bowl...the dust bowl was probably more directly responsible for the extension of the great depression than any policy a government set....there was drought, locust and mile high walls of dust....it was the reason crp was created...
1
we have been

i dont always double down on failure my friends, but when i do, i vote for obama. stay jobless my friends -most interesting man in the world

people who put other members names in their signatures secretly want to suck that persons dick...
USA...BACK TO BACK WORLD WAR CHAMPIONS!!!!!

User avatar
Posted by danobivins
  15,891 15 Jan 2014, 4:05 pm

danobivins User avatar
      
      

Posts: 12,984
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 15,891.26

FDR's leftist policies raised us out of the depression, you sparkly-eyed moonbat.
0
*All muslims are Jihadists...larry12

*A person with Spanish ancestry is not a member of the white race* ...redrock/southern independant

*Hillary's e-mails is far worse than Nixon's crimes" ...neoconvict

*Factcheck.org is a lying liberal site* *It's illegal to flash your brights*.... golfbot


User avatar
Posted by golfboy
  48,014 15 Jan 2014, 4:06 pm

golfboy Liberal Anti-Matter
User avatar
      
      

Posts: 51,295
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Money: 48,013.72



danobivins » 15 Jan 2014 3:05 pm wrote:
FDR's leftist policies raised us out of the depression, you sparkly-eyed moonbat.

Perhaps you don't understand what "deepened and extended" means?
0
ES » 07 Oct 2014 11:23 am wrote:
I've been doing face plants before your lies ever darkened any political forum.

Cannonpointer » 15 Oct 2014 10:46 am wrote:
Facts suck when you're a progressive.

Technocrat » 04 Sep 2014 12:15 pm wrote:
British invented English, you know.
:die:

tharock220's Photo
Posted by tharock220
  2,030 15 Jan 2014, 4:11 pm

tharock220 Moderator
     
     

Posts: 2,294
Anarchist Anarchist political affiliation
Politics: Anarchist
Money: 2,030.44



Misty » 15 Jan 2014 1:50 pm wrote:
That takes you to where the thread is located in the Profundum Disputatio room, where you can have a serious debate about this subject.
Good luck with that, seeing as how this is one of Clem's threads.
He's not interested in any kind of debate. All he cares about his shoving his right wing Op-Ed pieces, like the one in the OP, down our throats.


Can I expect you to take a similar stance towards everyone who posts nothing but op-eds and blogs???
0

User avatar
Posted by danobivins
  15,891 15 Jan 2014, 4:19 pm

danobivins User avatar
      
      

Posts: 12,984
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 15,891.26

golfboy » 15 Jan 2014 3:06 pm wrote:
danobivins » 15 Jan 2014 3:05 pm wrote:
FDR's leftist policies raised us out of the depression, you sparkly-eyed moonbat.

Perhaps you don't understand what "deepened and extended" means?



I understand it means your stupidity when you post contrarian claptrap like this that cause any historian or economist that reads oit to burst out laffin.
I guess that's why his policies continue almost 100 yrs later, shining success stories, beloved by the mass public, upheld by the scotus, because they "failed".
Reality keeps shoving it's boondocker up your ass, rich.
0
*All muslims are Jihadists...larry12

*A person with Spanish ancestry is not a member of the white race* ...redrock/southern independant

*Hillary's e-mails is far worse than Nixon's crimes" ...neoconvict

*Factcheck.org is a lying liberal site* *It's illegal to flash your brights*.... golfbot


User avatar
Posted by golfboy
  48,014 15 Jan 2014, 4:22 pm

golfboy Liberal Anti-Matter
User avatar
      
      

Posts: 51,295
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Money: 48,013.72



danobivins » 15 Jan 2014 3:19 pm wrote:

I understand it means your stupidity when you post contrarian claptrap like this that cause any historian or economist that reads oit to burst out laffin.
I guess that's why his policies continue almost 100 yrs later, shining success stories, beloved by the mass public, upheld by the scotus, because they "failed".
Reality keeps shoving it's boondocker up your ass, rich.

Clearly you missed who did wrote this report:
Mr. Cole is professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Ohanian is professor of economics and director of the Ettinger Family Program in Macroeconomic Research at UCLA.

So, should I believe these economists, or you, who is claiming economists would burst out "laffin" (sic).
0
ES » 07 Oct 2014 11:23 am wrote:
I've been doing face plants before your lies ever darkened any political forum.

Cannonpointer » 15 Oct 2014 10:46 am wrote:
Facts suck when you're a progressive.

Technocrat » 04 Sep 2014 12:15 pm wrote:
British invented English, you know.
:die:

SallyForth's Photo
Posted by SallyForth
  2,586 15 Jan 2014, 4:34 pm

SallyForth      
     

Posts: 2,202
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 2,585.99

RichClem » 15 Jan 2014 1:38 pm wrote:
FDR's leftist policies deepened and extended the Great Depression.

As most economists now agree.
Which is why liberals avoid their opinions and cite historians, social activists or political commentators instead. Why not cite plumbers or auto mechanics? :clap:



Whenever a lib here mentions something that happened even five years ago that makes cons look bad, their standard response is OH! YOU HAVE TO GO FIVE YEARS INTO THE PAST TO FIND SOMETHING. PRETTY DESPERATE, AREN'T YOU !

So what do we say to somebody who goes back to the 1930's to find something to whine about?
0

User avatar
Posted by danobivins
  15,891 15 Jan 2014, 4:50 pm

danobivins User avatar
      
      

Posts: 12,984
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 15,891.26

golfboy » 15 Jan 2014 3:22 pm wrote:
danobivins » 15 Jan 2014 3:19 pm wrote:

I understand it means your stupidity when you post contrarian claptrap like this that cause any historian or economist that reads oit to burst out laffin.
I guess that's why his policies continue almost 100 yrs later, shining success stories, beloved by the mass public, upheld by the scotus, because they "failed".
Reality keeps shoving it's boondocker up your ass, rich.

Clearly you missed who did wrote this report:
Mr. Cole is professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Ohanian is professor of economics and director of the Ettinger Family Program in Macroeconomic Research at UCLA.

So, should I believe these economists, or you, who is claiming economists would burst out "laffin" (sic).


Clearly you didn't do any research.
There's..what...30,000 economists? We have 2. 2 economists with a chart, that doesn't really support their premise.
2 enomists, whose claim stands in the stadium all by it's lonesome, and have been laffed at already by the mainstream, accredited economists.
Yeah, FDR's policies hurt employment, that's why the unemployment rate went from 25% to 14% between '33 and '37.

"
Though not wrong in every detail, the version of events offered by Cole and Ohanian is still a shocking distortion of what happened before FDR took office in March 1933. In particular, although Cole and Ohanian are correct that the trough of the Great Depression was reached in July 1932, when the Industrial Production Index stood at 3.67, rising to 4.15 in October, an increase of about 13%, they conveniently leave out the fact that there was a double dip; industrial production was flat in November and started falling in December, the Industrial Production Index dropping to 3.78 in March 1933, barely above its level the previous July. And their assertion that deflation continued during the recovery is even farther from the truth than their description of what happened to industrial production.

Putting the facts in one graph:
Image
You might think that this looks pretty straightforward: output shrank when prices were falling, grew when they were rising, which is what a demand-side story would predict. But Cole and Ohanian focus on the month-to-month wiggles in 1932-33 — conveniently omitting wiggles that went in an inconvenient direction — to claim that demand had nothing to do with it.
This goes beyond holding views I disagree with (as does much of what happens in this debate). This is a deliberate attempt to fool readers, demonstrating that there is no good faith here."

Paul Krugman
0
*All muslims are Jihadists...larry12

*A person with Spanish ancestry is not a member of the white race* ...redrock/southern independant

*Hillary's e-mails is far worse than Nixon's crimes" ...neoconvict

*Factcheck.org is a lying liberal site* *It's illegal to flash your brights*.... golfbot


RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 15 Jan 2014, 5:01 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,451.01

Misty » 15 Jan 2014 1:50 pm wrote:
golfboy » 15 Jan 2014 1:42 pm wrote:
What's the reason for this "profundum disputatio" post to an identical thread?


That takes you to where the thread is located in the Profundum Disputatio room, where you can have a serious debate about this subject.
Good luck with that, seeing as how this is one of Clem's threads.

He's not interested in any kind of debate. All he cares about his shoving his right wing Op-Ed pieces, like the one in the OP, down our throats.


Oh gosh, how horrible that I posted facts, logic and sound opinion! :o

Liberals run like vampires in front of a cross. :rofl:
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 15 Jan 2014, 5:04 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,451.01

SallyForth » 15 Jan 2014 3:34 pm wrote:
Whenever a lib here mentions something that happened even five years ago that makes cons look bad, their standard response is OH! YOU HAVE TO GO FIVE YEARS INTO THE PAST TO FIND SOMETHING. PRETTY DESPERATE, AREN'T YOU !


What are you babbling about? :loco:

Obama's policies have been in effect the full five years if not expanded, and the horrific economy is the direct result.

So what do we say to somebody who goes back to the 1930's to find something to whine about?


What, you have something against studying history? :clap:
0

User avatar
Posted by skews13
  2,617 15 Jan 2014, 5:19 pm

skews13 User avatar
     
     

Posts: 2,714
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 2,617.12

RichClem » 15 Jan 2014 1:38 pm wrote:
FDR's leftist policies deepened and extended the Great Depression.

As most economists now agree.
Which is why liberals avoid their opinions and cite historians, social activists or political commentators instead. Why not cite plumbers or auto mechanics? :clap:

How Government Prolonged the Depression
Policies that decreased competition in product and labor markets were especially destructive.

... the New Deal didn't restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office. Total hours worked per adult, including government employees, were 18% below their 1929 level between 1930-32, but were 23% lower on average during the New Deal (1933-39). Private hours worked were even lower after FDR took office, averaging 27% below their 1929 level, compared to 18% lower between in 1930-32.

Even comparing hours worked at the end of 1930s to those at the beginning of FDR's presidency doesn't paint a picture of recovery. Total hours worked per adult in 1939 remained about 21% below their 1929 level, compared to a decline of 27% in 1933. And it wasn't just work that remained scarce during the New Deal. Per capita consumption did not recover at all, remaining 25% below its trend level throughout the New Deal, and per-capita nonresidential investment averaged about 60% below trend. The Great Depression clearly continued long after FDR took office....

Why wasn't the Depression followed by a vigorous recovery, like every other cycle? It should have been. The economic fundamentals that drive all expansions were very favorable during the New Deal. Productivity grew very rapidly after 1933, the price level was stable, real interest rates were low, and liquidity was plentiful. We have calculated on the basis of just productivity growth that employment and investment should have been back to normal levels by 1936. Similarly, Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas and Leonard Rapping calculated on the basis of just expansionary Federal Reserve policy that the economy should have been back to normal by 1935.

So what stopped a blockbuster recovery from ever starting? The New Deal. Some New Deal policies certainly benefited the economy by establishing a basic social safety net through Social Security and unemployment benefits, and by stabilizing the financial system through deposit insurance and the Securities Exchange Commission. But others violated the most basic economic principles by suppressing competition, and setting prices and wages in many sectors well above their normal levels. All told, these antimarket policies choked off powerful recovery forces that would have plausibly returned the economy back to trend by the mid-1930s.

The most damaging policies were those at the heart of the recovery plan, including The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which tossed aside the nation's antitrust acts and permitted industries to collusively raise prices provided that they shared their newfound monopoly rents with workers by substantially raising wages well above underlying productivity growth. The NIRA covered over 500 industries, ranging from autos and steel, to ladies hosiery and poultry production. Each industry created a code of "fair competition" which spelled out what producers could and could not do, and which were designed to eliminate "excessive competition" that FDR believed to be the source of the Depression.

These codes distorted the economy by artificially raising wages and prices, restricting output, and reducing productive capacity by placing quotas on industry investment in new plants and equipment....

By the late 1930s, New Deal policies did begin to reverse, which coincided with the beginning of the recovery. ...

Mr. Cole is professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Ohanian is professor of economics and director of the Ettinger Family Program in Macroeconomic Research at UCLA.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 6749137485


Interesting premise. So your point is to deflect blame away from the fact that a conservatives failed policies took the country into a deep depression? I notice reading your blather that you left out the whole part of the story where a conservative caused the country to go into a deep depression. But the real blame in the twisted partisan hack mind of yours is not that a conservative caused the country to go into a deep depression, but it's more relevant that a Democrat didn't end a deep depression that was caused by a conservative to begin with? That pretty much cover your premise there cletis? So according to the rightwing hacks you are using as sources, the depression, coulda, woulda, shoulda, have ended in 1935 based upon their coulda, woulda, shoulda, assumptions?

You're still a lying partisan hack, with no credibility cletis. All one need do is read in credible history book, and the evidence is very clear. Conservatives get us into deep depressions, and Progressives get us out of them. That is the only lesson need be taken from this bullshit post of your's. Try the Glenn Beck show cletis. Those shit for brains listeners he has will believe anything. Back in the day they were the suckers P.T. Barnum referred to. Kind of like you cletis. A liar, a fool, a hack. and a sucker.
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 15 Jan 2014, 5:24 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,451.01

skews13 » 15 Jan 2014 4:19 pm wrote:
Interesting premise. So your point is to deflect blame away from the fact that a conservatives failed policies took the country into a deep depression?


The Great Depression was caused by 1) the Fed's strict tightening of the money supply

and 2) progressive Hoover's liberal-left policies, which were the foundation for FDR's failed New Deal.

None of that is conservative.

But don't let reality get in your way.

I notice reading your blather that you left out the whole part of the story where a conservative caused the country to go into a deep depression.


Sorry, I don't share your leftist psychosis. Hoover was not conservative. He held Coolidge's Free Market policies in contempt and reversed them once he was elected.

You're still a lying partisan hack, with no credibility cletis. All one need do is read in credible history book, and the evidence is very clear. Conservatives get us into deep depressions, and Progressives get us out of them. That is the only lesson need be taken from this bullshit post of your's. Try the Glenn Beck show cletis. Those shit for brains listeners he has will believe anything. Back in the day they were the suckers P.T. Barnum referred to. Kind of like you cletis. A liar, a fool, a hack. and a sucker.


Get some meds, moonbat. :\
0

User avatar
Posted by bingster
  10,948 15 Jan 2014, 5:26 pm

bingster User avatar
Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 17,838
Democratic Democratic political affiliation
Politics: Democratic
Money: 10,948.27



I, unlike my liberal friends, won't totally debunk this op as being confuck quackery because I know there are just as many Nobel lauriets on the supply side of economics debate as on the demand side of the debate. Economists were put on this earth to make astrologers look good.

However, no bagger has been able to justify what really did get us out of the Great Depression. What was it, baggers? Was it a tax cut? Was it a reduction of government spending? Or was it the most massive expenditure of government spending (measured against GDP) in our nation's history followed by more government spending and the highest tax rates also in our history. You baggers claim Reagan had an unprecedented success of economic growth while ignoring the fifties! No decade compared to the fifties in the increase, across the board, of income and prosperity in our nations history. Yes, after the acquistion of historical debt and the highest tax rates in our history, our country boomed with prosperity, the likes of which, we'll probably never see again. Where was the "trickle down" economics then?!!!
0

User avatar
Posted by danobivins
  15,891 15 Jan 2014, 5:26 pm

danobivins User avatar
      
      

Posts: 12,984
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 15,891.26

The OP has been discredited.
0
*All muslims are Jihadists...larry12

*A person with Spanish ancestry is not a member of the white race* ...redrock/southern independant

*Hillary's e-mails is far worse than Nixon's crimes" ...neoconvict

*Factcheck.org is a lying liberal site* *It's illegal to flash your brights*.... golfbot


User avatar
Posted by onlyaladd
  5,161 15 Jan 2014, 5:38 pm

onlyaladd User avatar
      
      

Posts: 22,016
Anarchist Anarchist political affiliation
Politics: Anarchist
Gender: Male
Money: 5,160.64



It's like saying most scientists don't believe in global warming but actually it's just 3% and they all work for oil companies.
Totally bogus. You would hate living in a non FOR world even more than you for whatever reason hate this relatively stable and cushy world. You're welcome.
0
"Europe’s a big place," he said. "I’m not going to take cards off the the table. We have nuclear capability.'
Trump discussing nuking Europe.

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 15 Jan 2014, 5:42 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,451.01

bingster » 15 Jan 2014 4:26 pm wrote:
I, unlike my liberal friends, won't totally debunk this op as being confuck quackery because I know there are just as many Nobel lauriets on the supply side of economics debate as on the demand side of the debate. Economists were put on this earth to make astrologers look good.

However, no bagger has been able to justify what really did get us out of the Great Depression. What was it, baggers? Was it a tax cut? Was it a reduction of government spending? Or was it the most massive expenditure of government spending (measured against GDP) in our nation's history followed by more government spending and the highest tax rates also in our history.


First, an economy will recover on its own, once bad policy is no longer enacted. FDR began reversing his own policies in the late 30's.

But arguably the biggest reason for the recovery was the huge post-WWII tax cut enacted by Repubs.

You baggers claim Reagan had an unprecedented success of economic growth while ignoring the fifties! No decade compared to the fifties in the increase, across the board, of income and prosperity in our nations history. Yes, after the acquistion of historical debt and the highest tax rates in our history, our country boomed with prosperity, the likes of which, we'll probably never see again. Where was the "trickle down" economics then?!!!


That's bulls***. Despite the Post WWII tax cut, starting in 1949 there were five recessions in twelve years totalling 25% of that period, which is precisely why Supply Sider JFK proposed his across the board tax rate cut that closely resembled Reagan's.

As usual, you bungle basic reality. :rofl:
0


Next

Return to No Holds Barred Political Forum

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

Who has visited this topic