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 10:13 PM, Monday December 26, 2011 EST also, food stamps really aren't technically welfare - although my understanding is that welfare also has a high multiplier.
the explanation for this would naturally be that people in need of food stamps or welfare will have to spend this money on bare essentials like food and clothes whereas the wealthy who receive the bulk of tax breaks will not have to spend this money on bare essentials - and consequently many of them don't spend it at all. |
|
deadcode wrote
at 11:34 PM, Monday December 26, 2011 EST I understand your explanation; but I'm interested in the source of the numbers. Any ideas on how to track down these numbers?
I've heard you use them a few times; but I've never been able to track down the source of them. |
|
@SecretVeta wrote
at 12:24 AM, Tuesday December 27, 2011 EST I posted to source as you asked on the other page - if you're asking me how they came to those numbers I can't tell you. My guess is it is a trade secret by moody and as a consequence they are unwilling to publish such information.
The CBO however takes the figures for fact so I assume they had to reveal some information with regards to their data processing to the government, albeit not in the actual testimony to congress. |
|
deadcode wrote
at 12:37 AM, Tuesday December 27, 2011 EST Ah sorry; missed the links; reading the documents now.
|
|
deadcode wrote
at 12:37 AM, Tuesday December 27, 2011 EST Tax Cuts
Nonrefundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.02 Refundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.26 Temporary Tax Cuts Payroll Tax Holiday 1.29 Across the Board Tax Cut 1.03 Accelerated Depreciation 0.27 Permanent Tax Cuts Extend Alternative Minimum Tax Patch 0.48 Make Bush Income Tax Cuts Permanent 0.29 Make Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Cuts Permanent 0.37 Cut Corporate Tax Rate 0.30 Spending Increases Extend Unemployment Insurance Benefits 1.64 Temporarily Increase Food Stamps 1.73 Issue General Aid to State Governments 1.36 Increase Infrastructure Spending 1.59 Source: Moody's Economy.com I think this is where you are getting it right? |
|
deadcode wrote
at 12:42 AM, Tuesday December 27, 2011 EST Fiscal Bang for the Buck
One-year $ change in real GDP per $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending Tax Cuts Nonrefundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.02 Refundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.26 Temporary Tax Cuts Payroll Tax Holiday 1.29 Across the Board Tax Cut 1.03 Accelerated Depreciation 0.27 Permanent Tax Cuts Extend Alternative Minimum Tax Patch 0.48 Make Bush Income Tax Cuts Permanent 0.29 Make Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Cuts Permanent 0.37 Cut Corporate Tax Rate 0.30 Spending Increases Extend Unemployment Insurance Benefits 1.64 Temporarily Increase Food Stamps 1.73 Issue General Aid to State Governments 1.36 Increase Infrastructure Spending 1.59 Source: Moody's Economy.com |
|
deadcode wrote
at 12:42 AM, Tuesday December 27, 2011 EST better formatted
|
|
deadcode wrote
at 1:02 AM, Tuesday December 27, 2011 EST Btw; I think it is kinda funny that Moody's can claim to know numbers such as these. The economy is way more complex then these numbers make it out to be. They even admit this by their limited scope. For example; they only are attempting to calculate the GDP gain per drop in revenue or increase in spending.
Therefore the study doesn't take into account other numerous other aspects such as job creation for example. The economy is much more complex then just GDP gain vs loss. Anyway; let's entertain these numbers. So; temporarily increasing food stamps has a rating of 1.73. Meaning 1.73 dollars of GDP growth per dollar spent. However; people on food stamps are consumers; not producers. Therefore they can only consume products with that money. There is no net job gain from a temporary food stamps increase. Sure some more food might be bought; for a month; but it is temporary. In order for jobs to be produced; the growth needs to be sustained. This is just part of owning a business. On the other hand; let's look at your numbers. A payroll tax holiday is 1.29. That is pretty dang close to the 1.73 of temporarily giving more food stamps. Plus I bet many of those payroll tax payers are business owners and can use this money to build their business. Or they maybe investors and they can use this money to invest in new companies. And let's not forget the best argument of all! It is their money to begin with! Why take it at all; and then come up with crazy math problems in order to figure out how to give it back more efficiently. Isn't it more efficient just to not take it at all. Now after considering this whole thing; I can't help but feel kinda dirty. The basis of your numbers are pretty clear. You believe that you can take money from one person and give it to another; and create a net gain in the economy. This is a perfect example of Hayek's Fatal Conceit. Basically the essence of your calculations is that you believe that money can be taken from one person and given to another; and somehow more wealth was created then existed before. I mean seriously. Does Keynesian economics basically boil down to taking all the money from me to give to welfare precipitants because your crazy formula says 1.73 for them instead of 1.29 for me? Are you trying to tell me that some how the economy would be on fire if only we all gave our money to food stamps. I feel like these statistics don't pass the sniff test. And let's also remember that Moody's is the same company that didn't see the disaster coming in the housing market. Yes that's right; they believed that houses were fairly priced; even though they were rising at a rate of 20% a year in some areas. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that your one bedroom apartment in bumble-fuck Brooklyn isn't worth 400k. |
|
@SecretVeta wrote
at 1:05 AM, Tuesday December 27, 2011 EST yes, that's the data referring to the effectiveness of different forms of marginal government spending injection.
Generally any sort of money put in the pockets of those with the least amount of wealth has the highest multiplier effect as I explained why above. However it's worth noting that infrastructure spending (as opposed to building arms) has nearly as high of a multiplier effect as food stamps. I think one of the things that made our nation great in the 20th century was all the infrastructure we built - the massive undertaking of the state high way system, the public school system, etc. All of these combined not only to support the national economy but also to give society as a whole something it can benefit from. Unfortunately since Nixon the "Society" programs have pretty much disappeared. He essentially dismantled the progressive coalition that had been dominating American politics since the 1930s. |
|
@SecretVeta wrote
at 1:36 AM, Tuesday December 27, 2011 EST {{However; people on food stamps are consumers; not producers. Therefore they can only consume products with that money. There is no net job gain from a temporary food stamps increase. Sure some more food might be bought; for a month; but it is temporary. In order for jobs to be produced; the growth needs to be sustained. This is just part of owning a business. }}
People don't create jobs - demand creates jobs. This has been made quite evident by the lack of any evidence suggesting that the tax cuts of the last 30 years have invigorated the economy. If anything they have left the wages of average americans stagnant and served to simply funnel wealth to the top 1 percent. Once again, the idea that tax cuts can create jobs was called "Voodoo economics" by Bush 41 - one of his few moments of honesty. The fact is the laffer curve is bullshit that the GOP fed the public to get them on board with making the rich richer. So for the last time - consumption (demand) creates jobs - not the other way around. A business can't just expand and expect clients to appear out of nowhere. {{A payroll tax holiday is 1.29. That is pretty dang close to the 1.73 of temporarily giving more food stamps. Plus I bet many of those payroll tax payers are business owners and can use this money to build their business. Or they maybe investors and they can use this money to invest in new companies. And let's not forget the best argument of all! It is their money to begin with! Why take it at all; and then come up with crazy math problems in order to figure out how to give it back more efficiently. Isn't it more efficient just to not take it at all. }} I would say that a difference of 30 percent is pretty significant - but what do I know. That being said a payroll tax holiday is also temporary. It's not suggesting that simply cutting taxes would produce a 1.29 multiplier. It actually says that the Bush tax cuts produce a .29 multiplier. So your point about the food stamps being temporary and the payroll holiday not being temporary doesn't really make sense - but I'm sure it was just a misunderstanding. You must be familiar with the notion that tax cuts after a certain point actually damage the economy right? It was a basic tenant of economics 101 - you can cut taxes to spur the economy if taxes are high but if taxes are low you are simply going to send more money into the vaults of the wealthy (who will not spend the money). In that scenario (like the one we face today) the government is better off spending the money in other ways (i.e. payroll holidays, infrastructure, food stamps, etc). {{Now after considering this whole thing; I can't help but feel kinda dirty. The basis of your numbers are pretty clear. You believe that you can take money from one person and give it to another; and create a net gain in the economy. This is a perfect example of Hayek's Fatal Conceit. }} Not really, I think you have it a bit twisted. The idea is basically this: at a certain point as you accrue more and more wealth you will stop needing to spend a large portion of your wealth on basic necessities - in fact after a certain point you will be unable to spend your wealth as quickly as you accrue it (See: Warren Buffet and the other 400 highest income earners of the USA). Remember that the top 400 richest Americans have more wealth than half of America combined. And it's not because they're 100 million times smarter, athletic, talented or good looking. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/ So the point here is that the more wealth you have the proportionately less of it you spend. And that is why things like payroll holidays, infrastructure spending, welfare, and food stamps have so much higher multiplier effects than the Bush tax cuts which come in at around .29 - netting us a total loss. Tax cuts would be an okay idea if the top brackets were around 70 percent - but they're not, they're half that. {{Basically the essence of your calculations is that you believe that money can be taken from one person and given to another; and somehow more wealth was created then existed before. I mean seriously.}} So once again, the claim in this Congressional Testimony is that yes, when you take money away from people that aren't spending a large portion of their marginal income and give it to people that spending a much larger portion of their marginal income you in essence create more spending. And spending in turn creates more demand which creates more jobs. Keep in mind it's not the other way around, jobs don't create demand and that's why you don't see millionaires hiring as many people as they can - it's simply not a sound business practice. However if the public at large has more disposable income then the demand for your business' goods or services may increase and that in turn may lead to you hiring more people and expanding to make your business even more lucrative. So yes tax cuts to business owners during a boom may effectively boost the economy but this will have little effect during a recession, the former is probably why we are experiencing the latter now though. {{Are you trying to tell me that some how the economy would be on fire if only we all gave our money to food stamps. }} I think if we employed an aggregated 50 percent of the types of spending that FDR's administration employed the economy would be on fire right now, yes. Jack up taxes on the highest income earners, spend that money on creating jobs (instead of cutting government jobs) and that will in turn create more demand which will create private sector jobs. It's like a positive feedback cycle. As far as your comment about Moody and the housing bubble I don't think that's a fair criticism to make unless you saw the housing bubble yourself and published an article about it suggesting its crash. Hindsight is 20/20, most people didn't see the stock market crash of 1929 but it was pretty obvious it was going to happen looking at the signs now isn't it. Lastly, I hope I don't need to reiterate that if Moody for some reason lied about these statistics they would be committing perjury and would be punishable to the fullest extent of the law (not because they lied about a blow job) but because they mislead the US government on matters of economic security. Also I don't see a real reason for moody to lie here - it's not like they gain anything from the government investing heavily in foodstamps - if anything they would gain more from tax cuts (which had the worst multipliers here). However it is Skrum's official opinion that these numbers are bogus, because they disagree with his world view and clearly moody has an alterior motive. |