FDR raised taxes and spend like crazy during a depression, how did that work out?

Not too well.

by Twba on 03/27/2009 03:42:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We defeated the Nazis, saved capitalism and began an explosion of the middle class and steady, sustained economic growth for decades to come (with no bubbles and busts).

Funny enough 1937 was a setback, precisely because FDR temporarily accepted some of the ideas of Republicans at the time. Thankfully he cut that nonsense out the following year.

I know that reality doesn't jive with the right wing think tanks, but I guess that's only relevant for those of us in the "reality based community".

by Tom Hanc on 03/27/2009 03:46:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Funny enough 1937 was a setback, precisely because FDR temporarily accepted some of the ideas of Republicans at the time.

Funny enough, that downturn coincided with a tax increase. Oops.

...steady, sustained economic growth for decades to come (with no bubbles and busts).

Have you already forgotten the severe recession of 1947? The post-war period was not as steady as you want to believe.

I know that reality doesn't jive with the right wing think tanks, but I guess that's only relevant for those of us in the "reality based community".

The reality based community needs to familiarize itself with mainstream economic scholarship.

In 1995, economist Robert Whaples of Wake Forest University published a survey of academic economists that asked them if they agreed with the statement, "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." Fifty-one percent disagreed, and 49 percent agreed.

The idea that some of FDR's policies prolonged the Great Depression is hardly confined to a few partisan think tanks.

by Twba on 03/27/2009 04:43:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Link

"...Now, it's true - back in 2004, two UCLA professors published a little-noticed report claiming the New Deal's government intervention prolonged the Great Depression. But that assertion has been subsequently eviscerated by, ya know, actual data...

Here's University of California historian Eric Rauchway:

"...For a start, New Deal intervention saved the banks. During Hoover's presidency, around 20 percent of American banks failed, and, without deposit insurance, one collapse prompted another as savers pulled their money out of the shaky system. When Roosevelt came into office, he ordered the banks closed and audited. A week later, authorities began reopening banks, and deposits returned to vaults.

Congress also established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which, as economists Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz wrote, was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War." After the creation of the FDIC, bank failures almost entirely disappeared. New Dealers also recapitalized banks by buying about a billion dollars of preferred stock...


The most important thing to know about Roosevelt's economics is that, despite claims to the contrary, the economy recovered during the New Deal. During Roosevelt's first two terms, the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent, with the exception of the recession year of 1937-1938...

Roosevelt's first two terms. In part, the jobs came from Washington, which directly employed as many as 3.6 million people to build roads, bridges, ports, airports, stadiums, and schools -- as well as, of course, to paint murals and stage plays. But new jobs also came from the private sector, where manufacturing work increased apace.


This basic fact is clear -- unless you quote only the unemployment rate for the recession year 1938 and count government employees hired under the New Deal as unemployed, which conservative commenters have taken to doing..."


After all, as Paul Krugman recently explained to a stunningly ignorant George Will on ABC News, 1937-1938 was the period Roosevelt dialed back the New Deal in the name of conservative demands that he stop spending:

By 1937 things were a lot better than they were in 1933. Then [FDR] was persuaded to balance the budget or try to and he raised taxes and cut spending and the economy went back down again and then it took an enormous public works program known as World War II to bring the economy out of the depression.
So with all of that data, let's go back to Fox News' main assertion: Is it really true that "historians pretty much agree" that the New Deal's government intervention prolonged the Great Depression? Of course not, as New York Times economics writer Daniel Gross says:

It was only with the passage of New Deal efforts--the SEC, the FDIC, the FSLIC--that the mechanisms of private capital began to kick back into gear. Don't take it from me. Take it from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who wrote the following in Essays on the Great Depression: "Only with the New Deal's rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression."...

The argument that the New Deal's efforts "perhaps had prolonged, the Depression," is a canard. One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian--I mean a serious historian, not a think-tank wanker, not an economist, not a journalist--who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression. (emphasis added)...

by Tom Hanc on 03/27/2009 05:06:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I anticipated your response.

by Twba on 03/27/2009 05:28:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
David Sirota is referencing others in his piece. Your dismissal of him is therefore a straw-man that ignores those others and their research.

Sorry champ, better luck next time.

by Tom Hanc on 03/27/2009 05:43:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm dismissing you. You're not worth the effort.

by Twba on 04/01/2009 05:34:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]