Skip to main content

View Diary: The Great Depression Pt. IV (187 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Going out on a limb here.... (3+ / 0-)

    I'm going to go out on a limb and try to make SilverOz's argument for him/her.  It's going out on a limb because doing so assumes I correctly understand what SilverOz is trying to say.  That said....

    SilverOz's argument seems to be that while FDR's New Deal policies might not have been the proximate cause of the 1933-40 recovery, they were still important and worthwhile government policy, because they prevented a repeat of the 1929-33 collapse until they were dismantled in the Republican Revolution of 1981-2009.  (Do I have that right, SilverOz?)

    In other words, SilverOz is saying the U.S. economy was already recovering from the 1929-33 contraction, and probably would have even if the New Deal hadn't been enacted, but without the New Deal policies we'd have seen other Great Depressions since.

    I'm not saying I agree with SilverOz's argument.  I'm just trying to describe what I perceive the argument to be, so we can discuss what SilverOz is really saying rather than critiquing him/her for an argument he/she is NOT making.

    •  That's pretty close (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk, NCrissieB

      Up until the "great depression" we were averaging one depression every 10 years or so.  Following the policies of the New Deal protections we have had zero.

      •  but NONE of them were the magnitude (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ice Blue

        of 1929-33.  Nor were they worldwide, I don't believe. I could be wrong, after all, IANAE.

        Article 6: "...no religious test shall *ever* be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the U.S."

        by billlaurelMD on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 07:06:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  we've had them. we just stopped calling them (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ice Blue, liberalconservative

        depressions. JK Galbraith used to do a little rhetorical riff on this: how the term Panic was replaced with Depression which was replaced with Recession which was replaced with Market Correction.

        i'll note that you are basically buying Shlaes' argument: all of the other metrics don't matter, because the unemployment rate was still 10%. yet, the trend line is indisputable. unemployment fell steadily until 1937, when there was an uptick (whose cause is evidently subject to some dispute), and then continued to fall steadily, and was trending downward right through 1940. the fact that it had not yet reached a level "acceptable" to you is not proof that it would not have had the war not rendered the entire discussion moot.

        i'm willing to admit, however, that 10% might be the "natural" level of unemployment that one would have in a "New Deal Economy" functioning at equilibrium. whether you find that figure acceptable or not is evidence of nothing other than where you like to draw lines. somebody who had been through 20% unemployment (with no UI) might find your argument pedantic at best.

        I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

        by UntimelyRippd on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 07:08:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (182)
  • Community (72)
  • Civil Rights (51)
  • Baltimore (44)
  • Elections (41)
  • Culture (38)
  • Bernie Sanders (38)
  • 2016 (34)
  • Economy (34)
  • Texas (32)
  • Law (31)
  • Labor (29)
  • Hillary Clinton (28)
  • Environment (27)
  • Rescued (23)
  • Education (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Politics (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site