Forum
Newt Gingrich gets confronted by Occupy Protesters at Press conference. When asked why he won't support FDRs roadmap he states, FDR "didn't end the depression. WWII did."
|
@SecretVeta wrote
at 9:13 AM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST
The period from 1933 to 1937 remains the fastest period of peacetime growth in American history. GDP growth averaged approximately 10% per year. You can see the full range of data here. Additionally, Roosevelt's monetary policy was probably more successful than his fiscal stimulus. First, the bank holiday restored the confidence of American savers and investors more so than probably any other action. Banks were closed on March 9, 1933 and began to reopen only after thorough auditing. When the banks opened on March 12, depositors, despite the suspension of gold convertibility, began putting their money back in the banks. Within a week, $1 billion had been put back into the banking system that had fled during the runs on banks prior to Roosevelt's inauguration. On March 15, the New York Stock Exchanged opened for the first time in 10 days and the Dow jumped 15%, which was the largest single day movement in its history. By the end of the month of March, 2/3 of all banks were reopened and $1.5 billion had returned to the banks.
The second major act of monetary policy was the suspension of the gold standard. That action was overwhelmingly supported by financial and consumer markets. On the day the change was announced, the NYSE jumped 15%. Within three months, wholesale prices had risen 45%. This lowered the real cost of borrowing significantly and investment began to flow into the private sector--orders for heavy machinery rose 100%--and into consumer markets--auto sales doubled. Overall industrial production rose 50%. By early 1937, overall industrial production had returned to its 1929 peak. Unemployment, moreover, had been halved from 25% nationally in 1933 (with certain cities and demographic groups even worse off--75% of black women in Detroit were unemployed) to about 12%-14% in early 1937 (Unemployment statistics prior to 1940 are always best guesses as the Bureau of Labor Statistics didn't collect them until then). In 1937, FDR faced a growing conservative coalition in Congress and had his own misgivings about spending and reduced relief funding which caused a minor recession. Unemployment jumped to around 17%. GDP fell slightly in 1938, but was above its 1937 levels in 1939. Had this small recession not happened, the US may have left the Depression before military spending for WWII began to pick up. As it is, the combination of war production and the draft is what wiped out unemployment by 1942. So the New Deal didn't end the Depression, but it most certainly did not make things worse and was responsible for helping millions of people. There's a reason why FDR was elected four times and the Democrats only lost control of Congress once between 1930 and 1952. This isn't to say that the fiscal stimulus was entirely unsuccessful or wasn't important though. Indeed, the New Deal basically created the infrastructure that the modern United States thrived on in the post-War period. The political philosophy of public works was crowned by the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, which was a direct outgrowth of the New Deal state. Between 1933 and 1935, the Roosevelt administration spent the equivalent of $1.83 TRILLION on just two public works programs, employing about 15.5 million people directly (not counting indirect employment estimates) over the course of 1933 to 1943. I recently read a really great book which put all of the relevant statistics for the two major New Deal "stimulus packages" (they didn't use that term at the time) into a really well researched history of New Deal public works: Building New Deal Liberalism: The Political Economy of Public Works, 1933-1956, by Jason Scott Smith. This is about as concise a summary of what the New Deal built as you can get. -From 1933 to 1939, the federal spending on construction rose 1650% over the previous four years (1925-1929). The Public Works Administration was created in Title II of the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933. It had an initial appropriation of $3.3 billion- equivalent to 165% of federal revenue in 1933 or 5.9% of GDP. -US GDP in 1933 was $56.4 billion. With U.S. GDP currently around $14.5 trillion, the 2010 equivalent of a PWA would involve a stimulus package of about $857 billion composed only of direct outlays, no tax cuts or tax incentives. -To put that $857 billion in perspective, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $275 billion for federal contracts, grants, and loans. -The PWA completed projects in 3,068 of 3,071 counties in the United States and funded the beginning of other major parts of the New Deal like the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Civilian Conservation Corps. -The PWA was responsible for a myriad of major hydroelectric projects in addition to the TVA. On the non-federal level, PWA funds built or modernized the Hetch Hetchy and Imperial hydroelectric projects in California, the Santee-Cooper project in South Carolina, the Grand River Dam in Oklahoma, the Lower Colorado River Authority. At the federal level, the PWA was responsible for the Shasta Dam, the Fort Peck Damn, the Bonneville Dam, the Grand Coulee Dam, and finishing the Hoover Dam. -By July 1936, the PWA had built or modernized one or more schools in 47% of all counties. The PWA completed 7,488 school. -From 1933 to 1940, the PWA was responsible for 80% of all sewer construction in the United States, completing 1,527 projects. The PWA was also responsible for 37% of all new waterworks in 1934, 50% in 1935, 77% in 1936, and 37% in 1937 for a total of 2,419 projects. -Over the same period of time the PWA built 822 hospitals, asylums, and sanitariums. -The PWA also built or modernized 388 bridges or viaducts. Among those built by the PWA was the Triborough Bridge in NYC. The PWA also built NYC's Lincoln Tunnel and the Williamsburg Houses. -The PWA completed 4,287 public buildings projects, including 295 courthouses and 342 airports. -Other notable PWA projects include the aircraft carrier USS Yorktown and Fort Knox. -By March, 1939, the PWA had completed 34,448 projects on the federal, state, county, and municipal levels. -Total PWA employment was about 7 million over the course of 1934 to 1939, averaging 1.17 million per year. Now all of this is very impressive. And here's where I tell you that it was the smaller of the two major New Deal construction programs. -Congress passed the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act in 1935 and FDR created the Works Progress Administration to administer the funds. -The initial appropriation for the WPA was $4.88 billion- equivalent to 135% of federal revenue in 1935 or 6.7% of GDP (keep in mind that GDP grew approximately 30% from 1933 to 1935). -The 2011 equivalent of a WPA appropriation would be approximately $973 billion in direct outlays. -The WPA built 78,000 new bridges and viaducts and modernized 46,000 others. The WPA also built 1,000 new tunnels. -The WPA built 6,000 brand new schools, constructed additions at 2,170 others, and modernized 31,000 more. -The WPA was also responsible for building 1,000 public libraries and 225 public hospitals. -The WPA also built 9,300 auditoriums and gymnasiums and improved 5,800 others. -WPA projects also included 226 new hospitals and 156 improved ones. -Office space was also expanded as WPA workers built 6,400 office buildings. -Other buildings included 7,000 dormitories, 6,000 warehouses, 900 armories, and 2,700 firehouses. -The WPA built a total of 40,000 new public buildings and imporived 85,000 others. -The WPA funded several subsidiary organizations like the National Youth Administration, the Federal Art Project, and the Federal Writers Project, Federal Music Project, and Federal Theater Project. -WPA workers built 67,000 miles of city streets and 24,000 miles of sidewalk and 25,000 miles of curb. -Additionally, the WPA built 572,000 miles of rural roads. Of this, 57,000 miles were paved with concrete or macadam. -Between 1935 and 1943, the WPA employed 8.5 million people directly, reaching a peak of approximately 3.3 million in 1938. |
|
@SecretVeta wrote
at 12:47 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST deadcode wrote
at 11:32 AM, Thursday December 22, 2011 CST Gingrich is a fool; but he is right about something. FDR didn't get us out of the recession. |
|
deadcode wrote
at 12:50 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST Veta: "For your leisure I outlined"
You clearly imply you had a hand in making this post; but whatever. I'm just ruffling your feathers. Btw; stop trying to make this whole issue into a closed book case. Anyone with even cursory knowledge knows that this topic is very contentious. In fact; in order for you to claim the debate is over requires you to ignore the whole Austrian economic movement; and others who have argued against your above points. Hayek... doesn't exist. Milton... doesn't exist. Mises... doesn't exist. Smith... doesn't exist. Btw; you should look up how the WPA was perceived while it was operating. People in that time period considered WPA workers are lazy and good for nothing. Most employers did not want to hire WPA workers; because they were widely considered lazy and unskilled. "To Kill a Mockingbird" actually references this in the book somewhere by saying a particularly lazy character was "the only person to be fired from the WPA for laziness." |
|
deadcode wrote
at 12:51 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST So you read that above quote and took out of it that I support the argument that WW2 ended the Great Depression?!
|
|
@SecretVeta wrote
at 12:52 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST the mental gymnastics and double think here astound me.
|
|
deadcode wrote
at 12:54 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST Agreed; gotta run.
|
|
bcmatteagles wrote
at 2:33 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST Don't really have a horse in this race except I agree you should have cited your source since obviously you didn't compile all of those facts and you know better than to post something like this without including the source.
A vague recollection from my econ class like 9 years ago mentioned the debate on whether deficit spending or wartime spending are true drivers in recovery from recession. This is clearly an ambiguous case because while there was a clear initial bump from the deficit spending, would it have been sustained without WWII? I'm no economist so I'll leave that to be worked out by the experts. |
|
Gangstrrr wrote
at 2:41 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST {{ If you disagree that the New Deal was integral in pulling us out of the Great Depression then please explain how the above had no impact on millions of people's lives. }}
It had tremendous impact. This was the era of the "lunch kit carrying" working nuclear family man, held in a much different (higher?) regard than today. People were fucking desperate. On psychological impact alone it was enormous. Bridges, roads, institutions were being built. Tangible things. You could "see" it happen. Markets and economies are and remain subject to factors of "confidence", be it the security and stability of one's banking institution, one's currency as well as the state of mind of your average individual consumer. To deny FDR's policies had no impact seems naive and does seem to conflict with what's right there in the data. Economic recovery was shown to slowly unfold in line with government initiative spending. WW2 is officially declared and government spending goes through the roof. Economic recovery escalates dramatically. IMC is born. The argument in my mind is not which of of them was responsible for what, as both demonstrated degrees of effectiveness. The question is perhaps one of aims. Will it be guv pork in effect buttressing infrastructure or guv corporatism bolstering military might. In short what's your preference. Roads or bombs. Simple fact there's a lot more quicker faster money to be had in supplying the world with munitions. Whatever can be said, FDR's banking regs were critical in keeping banks and their practices in check. The stability this in effect created for 40 years in my opinion remains pretty uncontroversial, the bulk of which was effectively dismantled by both sides of the isle over the years. No secret as to how well that panned out for us all. I feel it's difficult if not impossible to compare FDR's initiatives with more recent attempts. Paulson and Bush were faced with two very difficult choices, allow the entire house of cards to fall or bail out big banking... ( especially AIG which spelled complete total global financial meltdown should it fail.) Obama's initiatives = FAIL. A lot can be said about why, but in mind you can pretty much sum it up as horribly squandered as a result of purely derelict mismanagement. I was personally witness to some of that up here in Canada. There seemed to be a little more oversight so it wasn't as severe, but I personally saw up close how some of it went to waste. Sad really, because you could see with even slightly better management much of it could have been avoided. |
|
Gangstrrr wrote
at 2:41 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST {{ Gingrich is a fool; but he is right about something. FDR didn't get us out of the recession. }}
well you kinda deserved a slap from Veta for this. That's no response of any kind. Regardless of WHAT that was it does smack of your typical of ideological obstinate thick headedness one can find anywhere on a given day. Truly, you'd be better off not doing that. It's annoying as fuck. If that's all you got, then say nothing at all. It's really bad form in debate imo. {{ Actually, Veta, you just plagiarized a REDIT post by someone and posted it here without a link to the source. }} agreed, he could have referenced it better. But who fucking cares. He posted reference to the supporting data. Doesn't justify attacking the messenger. (more bad form) It's like people fixated on Alex Jones, who in my opinion is a total douche. Nonetheless if someone's inclined to reference some of his shit, which at times I'll admit occasionally holds water, what do I care. I'll accept it. |
|
deadcode wrote
at 4:10 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST Gangster; I really don't see you adding anything new to this argument except for reiterating Veta's points.
I get your point; you believe that all of FDR's government spending helped us out of the Great Depression. However you claim that this is iron clad; and in fact laughable to deny. Well if this is your position; then I would respectfully suggest that you are not reading all sides of the argument. If you find any suggestion that FDR actually exasperated the Great Depression; as beyond comprehension and laughable; then I believe your researching abilities are suspect. Do you know of Milton Friedman? If not; I suggest you read about him. Claiming that I am thick headed for arguing a point that you haven't even researched on an elementary basis is absurd. Sure sometimes my point of view is abrasive; but I've been arguing with Veta about economics for years. The difference between my opinion and yours; is that mine is formed while understanding the ins and outs of both sides; yours laughs at the other side for daring to debate. And btw; nice try and on trying to claim in fixated on Veta's sourcing. I mentioned it in passing (as a dig) because he claimed that he did us a favor by "outlining" the above FDR stats. Which was obviously false. Sorry; I'm a stickler for lying; when I see it; I point that shit out. If you find it annoying; then be prepared to be annoyed a lot. |
|
@SecretVeta wrote
at 5:13 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST I did format (outline) the post. If I just copy and pasted the information it would be an impenetrable garble of words.
Also, everything you're even hinting at (the recession of 1937) is in the OP so I don't understand why'd you even bring up something that's been addressed - unless you didn't read my post. The idea that Friedman would contest that government spending gets you out of financial collapses like the one we witnessed in 1929 or the one we witnessed in 2007 is laughable. Friedman's main claim to fame and forte was the subject of game theory - of which this has nothing to do. Friedman was also a vocal opposition to communism and socialism so a lot of what you'll see from him on the internet is primarily focused on that. Even he would recognize that under many circumstances centralized market direction is necessary, see: economic J curve. While on the subject of the J curve, it's interesting to note that China seemed to build itself up on the left side of the J curve and then jumped to the right side to continue its growth - demonstrating once again that a mixed economy (not super unregulated, but not super centralized) is the most successful modern policy. We as the United States did something not unlike what China did 65 years earlier - we got the economy churning with a government (centralized) direction and then once it got going we let it run its course (although we still kept a tight leash). That is of course until Reagan's administration repealed all the regulations FDR put in place. |