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. |
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 5:20 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST Take a look at one of FDR's campaign speeches, on October 25, 1932, only three weeks or so before the election:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=88402#axzz1hJ95Xrcj "Next in line I want to talk to you about the Horseman of Delay, who followed closely on the heels of the Horseman of Destruction. To take action ? strong, vigorous action ? to repair and rebuild destruction, is to admit that there has been destruction. The Republican leaders would never be willing to admit that. And so they delayed. When they should have taken vigorous action to relieve the Federal budget of its crushing burden in December, 1929, they failed to do so. Their delay to take action to reduce expenditures continued from year to year, 1929, 1930, 1931. " |
|
deadcode wrote
at 10:58 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST Veta: "Friedman's main claim to fame and forte was the subject of game theory - of which this has nothing to do."
I think you are thinking of someone else. Milton Friedman is not best known for game theory; in fact; I'm not aware of any work he has done on game thoery. A small search of the web doesn't expose what you are talking about; but considering Milton Friedman is a Nobel prize winning Economist; I doubt you are referring to the proper person. Btw; he also was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for economics; not game theory. And btw; I named a whole bunch of other economists some of which are even more well known then Milton. |
|
deadcode wrote
at 11:02 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST Btw; the cause of the Great Depression was the Federal Reserve. This is the consensus of many economists ranging from Milton Friedman all the way to even Ben Bernanke himself (whether he knows the correct reason the Fed caused it; we may disagree).
|
|
deadcode wrote
at 11:04 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST And most of those same economists would argue that the Fed has created the current crisis as well. Artificially low interest rates; create bubbles.
|
|
@SecretVeta wrote
at 12:26 AM, Friday December 23, 2011 EST You're right, his claim to fame was stabilization theory not game theory. I did learn about game theory from one of his recorded lectures though.
Here's Milton's stance on keynesian economics in earnest from his wikipedia article (tried to keep it short): {{Friedman was a Keynesian in the 1930s and 1940s, and always said he favored some aspects of the New Deal such as "providing relief for the unemployed, providing jobs for the unemployed, and motivating the economy to expand... an expansive monetary policy"; however, he never advocated wage and price controls. His challenges to what he later called "naive Keynesian" (as opposed to New Keynesian) theory[4] began with his 1950s reinterpretation of the consumption function. At the University of Chicago, Friedman became the main advocate opposing activist Keynesian government policies; he has been characterized as "the leader of the first recognized counterrevolution against Keynesianism",[5] although even in the late-1960s he described his own approach (along with all of mainstream economics) as still wedded to the "Keynesian language and apparatus" albeit rejecting its "initial" conclusions.}} So there you have it - one of your economists very much approved of the New Deal, perhaps not every facet of it, especially after he began to cement himself as a figure the field of economics. Game theory is an aspect of economics, it is integral to understanding of the global economy and Friedman has a pretty good lecture about it as well as corresponding zero-sum games. He seemed very amicable. {Btw; the cause of the Great Depression was the Federal Reserve. This is the consensus of many economists ranging from Milton Friedman all the way to even Ben Bernanke himself (whether he knows the correct reason the Fed caused it; we may disagree).} Actually my history book in high school said it was caused by a stock market crash. {And most of those same economists would argue that the Fed has created the current crisis as well. Artificially low interest rates; create bubbles.} I'm not sure how much you know about history - but there was a time when the US had no central bank. Not too long after Jackson vetoed the renewal of the Bank of the USA the nation suffered its worst recession in history - until the great depression. I don't claim to be an economic wizard but I am pretty sure there is a reason why every western nation has a central banking institution. Whether or not that should be the fed, as it exists now, I can't say for certain. And nor can you, and nor can any of those economists you named because they're dead. However I find it extremely amusing that as a libertarian/conservative (anti federalist anarcho capitalist would be more accurate) you use people like Hayek and Smith and Friedman to justify your views on economics - views which I might add are most likely unoriginal and cached. That is to say it appears as though you seek out evidence that agrees with your conclusions, rather than drawing conclusions from evidence (e.g. the New Deal got a lot of people working again and drastically improved the economic and monetary climate of the nation from 1933 onward). |
|
deadcode wrote
at 1:11 AM, Friday December 23, 2011 EST Here is Milton Friedman on John Maynard Keynes
"While Milton Friedman described The General Theory as "a great book", he argues that its implicit separation of nominal from real magnitudes is neither possible nor desirable; macroeconomic policy, Friedman argues, can reliably influence only the nominal.[100] He and other monetarists have consequently argued that Keynesian economics can result in stagflation, the combination of low growth and high inflation that developed economies suffered in the early 1970s. More to Friedman's taste was the Tract on Monetary Reform (1923), which he regarded as Keynes's best work because of its focus on maintaining domestic price stability." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes#Friedman Doesn't sound like the Keynesian you make him out to be. Also funny he describes the result of Keynesian economics as stagflation (the combination of low growth and high inflation); because... that is EXACTLY what is happening right now! If Milton Friedman is such a Keynesian; then you should follow his instructions and... stop the Keynesian crap immediately; it is causing stagflation! Veta: "Actually my history book in high school said it was caused by a stock market crash." That is because your history book was probably for a young student. Most kids learn American history at a young age; and then never take it again when older. The stock market crashed because of the fed's monetary policy. They created a bubble with low interests rates; the same way our contemporary fed; created the current crash and housing bubble. Listen; you argue for the existence of the current system by saying, "I am pretty sure there is a reason why every western nation has a central banking institution". Yet go on to explain none of these reasons. Every nation at one point had slaves; and kings; and all kinds of other crap that made no sense; or was wrong. The fractional reserve system is one of them. Veta: "However I find it extremely amusing that as a libertarian/conservative (anti federalist anarcho capitalist would be more accurate) you use people like Hayek and Smith and Friedman to justify your views on economics - views which I might add are most likely unoriginal and cached. That is to say it appears as though you seek out evidence that agrees with your conclusions, rather than drawing conclusions from evidence (e.g. the New Deal got a lot of people working again and drastically improved the economic and monetary climate of the nation from 1933 onward)." Blah blah blah; I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I'm a lassiez-faire capitalist. But, hell, I'm happy just to move in the direction of free market capitalism. I know you love to imply that my world view is not based in any firm foundation. You flat out state that you think that I seek out opinions that I already agree with. You are just plain wrong. Way before I was interested in politics; I studied philosophy. My foundation is very solid; I don't make decisions on a whim; nor do I cherry pick evidence to fit a preconceived world view. It was philosophy that lead to an interest in politics / economics. Not vice-versa. |
|
@SecretVeta wrote
at 3:53 PM, Sunday December 25, 2011 EST Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Just because there is stagflation (there is not) that does not mean it was caused by Keynesian polcies. I think it's been made abundantly clear to you that if this nation was thorough and had employed basic keynesian tenets through out the last 3 decades in its fiscal and monetary policy (i.e. tax the fuck out of a booming economy, inject a ton of wealth into a stalling one) we would not be in this mess at all. The fact of the matter is - you can't abide by the comfortable easy-money fiscal and monetary policy that Friedman (Reagan's chief economic advisor) and Hayek advocated before it all comes crashing down like it did in 2007. If Friedman gave more keynesian advice to Reagan, perhaps this financial meltdown would've never happened. But as it stands, Reagan undid/redid most if not all of FDR's regulation on financial institution and sure enough salaries and wages of the bottom 99 percent have stagnated while wealth has been funneled to those at the top - culminating in the meltdown for 2007, for which I am sure we will pay dearly another 5 years. |
|
deadcode wrote
at 4:06 PM, Sunday December 25, 2011 EST Veta; once again you do not have your facts right. Hayek did not call for low interest rates. In fact it is exactly the opposite.
You may have heard of the theory that low interest rates (easy money) cause malinvestment and speculation. I can't believe that you are a finance major and are not familiar with Hayek. It's just impossible for me to fathom that you spent your entire life learning Keynesian economics; yet cannot even properly describe other major theories. EconLib.org on Hayek: "He concluded, artificially low interest rates not only cause investment to be artificially high, but also cause “malinvestment”—too much investment in long-term projects relative to short-term ones, and the boom turns into a bust. Hayek saw the bust as a healthy and necessary readjustment. The way to avoid the busts, he argued, is to avoid the booms that cause them." EconLib.org on Hayek: "Hayek and Keynes were building their models of the world at the same time. They were familiar with each other’s views and battled over their differences. Most economists believe that Keynes’s General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) won the war. Hayek, until his dying day, never believed that, and neither do other members of the Austrian school. Hayek believed that Keynesian policies to combat unemployment would inevitably cause inflation, and that to keep unemployment low, the central bank would have to increase the money supply faster and faster, causing inflation to get higher and higher. Hayek’s thought, which he expressed as early as 1958, is now accepted by mainstream economists (see phillips curve)." http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Hayek.html That is pretty much exactly the situation we find ourselves in. Keynesian trying to solve unemployment and instead creating high inflation. Funny we have high unemployment... high inflation... and Keynesians in the drivers seat. As long as the Keynesians are in charge the situation will only get worse. You just wait and see. |
|
deadcode wrote
at 4:12 PM, Sunday December 25, 2011 EST Veta; you need to start using sources; seriously. I hereby refuse to respond to any more of your misinformation and wild claims; unless you start sourcing your stuff.
This is the second time you have made a false claim; and I have to go search the internet trying to find your source; only to find zilch. Do your own due diligence; stop being lazy. |
|
@SecretVeta wrote
at 5:09 PM, Sunday December 25, 2011 EST You can't be a "bad weather" keynesian. As I just explained to you - we advocated policies of the Austrian school of thought for much of the last 30 years and generally (while the economy did well) all the wealth generated in that time was amassed by a small percentage of the population. In principle Hayek is correct, the only way to avoid bust is to avoid boom, so you must direct the markets towards slow continual growth. Keynes advocated the exact same thing - the difference between the two lies in how they felt the government should play a role in all this. Keynes advocated that the government should be diligent and never negligent in its constant maintenance of the economy through fiscal and monetary means. Hayek argued among other things for the denationalization of money, and essentially a hands off approach to handling the economy by the government. His idea was simply for the government to not fuck things up and they would work themselves out.
Well Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 42 tried that and look where it got us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek#The_Denationalization_of_Money Perhaps if we had true keynesian policies in place for the last 35 years we wouldn't be in such a mess that we're in now. In fact, the stagflation of the 70s is exactly the kind of situation that the government could've handled - had not been spending its reserves on the arms race. All the government needed to do was inject massive amounts of spending into the economy in the 70s and voila we would've been over stagflation in a matter of a few quarters. But of course there is more than one way to skin a cat, you can also do what Friedman advised Reagan to do - and just throw out all the regulatory rules on the financial industry among other industries. That too will get you out of stagflaton - except it'll result in a funnel of wealth to the top .5 percent. So yeah, stop playing the kindergarten student that covers his ears and goes "lalalala i can't hear you!" whenever this is brought up. You know just as well that you can't suddenly adopt policies of an economic school of thought and see immediate results. Even FDR realized that getting out of the Great Depression, WW2 or not was going to take time with the newly adopted keynesian policies of his administration. You can't expect us to switch (suddenly) our monetary policy to keynes or to hayek whenever its convenient and expect for things to work out - I hope you're cognizant enough to realize that dead. And as I explained, if we were keynesian in the last 30 years, the government would've dramatically increased the tax rates for the highest income brackets (back up to what they were in the 50s) until the economy stopped growing unruly. But not only that, we needed to reemploy the Glass-Steagall act and curb the financial industry's corrupt practices. |