DC: My issue with that study is using 1929 as a base year seems suspect since the economy most likely was unrealistically high at that point. The issues they had with the new deal seem reasonable, but foreign goods were cheaper and should have help offset domestic inflation somewhat. Also little is mentioned of the agricultural collapse and what effect that was having other than that they didn't take it into account.

DC: In regards to Johnson You can argue with results if the means that were used were faulty. I think the lack of occupation and quick reunification were noble ends, but the means helped prolong segregation and other institutional ignorance that continues to permeate southern states today having a drastically negative effect on the ability of our country to have honest and effect governance still.

If you can't argue with results DC why do you list FDR as one of the worst presidents? Didn't he bring the USA from a nascent super power to a full fledged one? Didn't the depression end under him? Didn't he usher in the dramatic increase in living standards and prosperity that followed his presidency? Didn't he win us WW2? Didn't he establish the framework that has brought an end to major wars throughout the world and even the UN's security council which was responsible for many peacekeeping missions?

It just seems like you're not someone who really appreciates results - I'm probably wrong though.

Normally I tend to not nitpick much but Veta does kinda have a point about your intellectual consistency here.

If I grew up during FDR's time period I might have liked him too; who knows? there did seem to be short-term good results under his administration.

However in the long term and, more importantly, in the context of my life. His contributions were a net failure. "The New Deal" ushered the USA into an age of government growth that led us to this day. Obama and Bush are just FDR wannabes.

And there is now ample evidence that FDR's policies did arguably more to extend the depression than to end it.

How is there suddenly more evidence about things that happened 80 years ago?

Nvm guys 1 study by some biased guys is damning evidence and disproves decades of academic opinions

You know you could have argued with the points the study tries to make instead of being an insufferable jackass, just a thought.

Once again Veta describes are whole school of economics with published theories and conclusions of 100s if not thousands of academic and professions economists; as simply 1 biased person

Veta search "Austrian Economics" then be prepared for some shocking "new" information...