Political Crossfire Forums

micfranklin · Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 7:06 pm Post subject:

zero18 wrote: micfranklin wrote: I don't know if the New Deal made the Depression last longer, but I personally think all of those programs (AAA, AVA, etc) didn't really do anything.

It certainly had a placebo effect on America. Everyone felt that since something was being done things were going to get better sooner. In reality, the New Deal only dragged out the Depression.

And WWII seemed to put an end to the Depression, since all the war factories were opening up.

zero18 · Joined: 13 Dec 2004 Posts: 6997 Location: Illinois

micfranklin wrote: zero18 wrote: micfranklin wrote: I don't know if the New Deal made the Depression last longer, but I personally think all of those programs (AAA, AVA, etc) didn't really do anything.

It certainly had a placebo effect on America. Everyone felt that since something was being done things were going to get better sooner. In reality, the New Deal only dragged out the Depression.

And WWII seemed to put an end to the Depression, since all the war factories were opening up.

Meh, I think the war helped a little, but I never would consider war to be the ultimate economic booster. Deficit spending almost always result in war which hurt the economy in the long run.

rye · Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 711

zero18 wrote: micfranklin wrote: zero18 wrote: micfranklin wrote: I don't know if the New Deal made the Depression last longer, but I personally think all of those programs (AAA, AVA, etc) didn't really do anything.

It certainly had a placebo effect on America. Everyone felt that since something was being done things were going to get better sooner. In reality, the New Deal only dragged out the Depression.

And WWII seemed to put an end to the Depression, since all the war factories were opening up.

Meh, I think the war helped a little, but I never would consider war to be the ultimate economic booster. Deficit spending almost always result in war which hurt the economy in the long run.

Almost every historian on the planet would disagree with your first statement and be dumbfounded by your second.

Could you provide some evidence that deficit spending causes war?

ubikk · Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 2303

zero18 wrote: Deficit spending almost always result in war which hurt the economy in the long run.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm not sure why you'd say it causes war. Can you elaborate?

evil muppet · Joined: 17 Aug 2006 Posts: 316

Deficit spending is how governments frequently pay for wars but that is a far cry from causing.

zero18 · Joined: 13 Dec 2004 Posts: 6997 Location: Illinois

rye wrote: zero18 wrote: micfranklin wrote: zero18 wrote: micfranklin wrote: I don't know if the New Deal made the Depression last longer, but I personally think all of those programs (AAA, AVA, etc) didn't really do anything.

It certainly had a placebo effect on America. Everyone felt that since something was being done things were going to get better sooner. In reality, the New Deal only dragged out the Depression.

And WWII seemed to put an end to the Depression, since all the war factories were opening up.

Meh, I think the war helped a little, but I never would consider war to be the ultimate economic booster. Deficit spending almost always result in war which hurt the economy in the long run.

Almost every historian on the planet would disagree with your first statement and be dumbfounded by your second.

Could you provide some evidence that deficit spending causes war?

On my second sentence I meant " you almost always get deficit spending in war". Must have been drunk when I typed that.

And what exactly do you disagree with on my first sentence?

rye · Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 711

zero18 wrote: And what exactly do you disagree with on my first sentence?

"Meh, I think the war helped a little, but I never would consider war to be the ultimate economic booster. "

I mean that the economic effects of WWII are not in dispute. There is direct causal evidence showing that the war brought the U.S. out of the depression by creating a full employment situation. On top of that, the economic stimulation was almost completely Keynsian in nature because gov't spending in the war industries was the biggest catalyst. I agree that war isn't the ultimate economic booster, but it was during WWII.

zero18 · Joined: 13 Dec 2004 Posts: 6997 Location: Illinois

rye wrote: zero18 wrote: And what exactly do you disagree with on my first sentence?

"Meh, I think the war helped a little, but I never would consider war to be the ultimate economic booster. "

I mean that the economic effects of WWII are not in dispute. There is direct causal evidence showing that the war brought the U.S. out of the depression by creating a full employment situation. On top of that, the economic stimulation was almost completely Keynsian in nature because gov't spending in the war industries was the biggest catalyst. I agree that war isn't the ultimate economic booster, but it was during WWII.

I said that it helped "a little" because I do agree that it did open up jobs. However, war ultimately is wasteful for an economy. During the Civil War, William Graham Sumner stated, "The mills, forges, and factories were active in working for the government, while the men who ate the grain and wore the clothing were active in destroying, and not in creating capital. This, to be sure, was war. It is what war means, but it cannot bring prosperity." The case was the same for WW2. It helped in the short run, but like all war, it hurt even more in the long run.

ubikk · Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 2303

zero18 wrote:
I said that it helped "a little" because I do agree that it did open up jobs.

What it did was get money flowing in the economy. People made airplanes and got paid money. What was even more important in ending the depression and getting the economy rolling were the GI social programs that came out after the war. The GI bill that sent vets to college, new laws that made it much easier for vets to buy houses in the suburbs, etc. That's when the economy really took off.

Note to conservatives: The "GI bill" was a liberal social program, for vets.

melchizedek22 · Joined: 27 Apr 2006 Posts: 370 Location: Holy Toledo

What some of you can't seem to see is people need some help from some where,and only the government was in a postition to help!
Al Capone could only afford so many soup kitchens!
read The Grapes of Wrath

zero18 · Joined: 13 Dec 2004 Posts: 6997 Location: Illinois

ubikk wrote: zero18 wrote:
I said that it helped "a little" because I do agree that it did open up jobs.

What it did was get money flowing in the economy. People made airplanes and got paid money. What was even more important in ending the depression and getting the economy rolling were the GI social programs that came out after the war. The GI bill that sent vets to college, new laws that made it much easier for vets to buy houses in the suburbs, etc. That's when the economy really took off.

Note to conservatives: The "GI bill" was a liberal social program, for vets.

*sigh* you keep missing my point. Do you think war creates more capital than it destroys?

ubikk · Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 2303

Quote: *sigh* you keep missing my point. Do you think war creates more capital than it destroys?

The war itself destroys more than it creates, but in gearing up for war we can create additonal production capacity to produce more capital after the war ends. War also drives technology, often faster than the market does.

It's those kinds of benefits that we get from war, that we can sometimes get from government policies outside of war. Government can push technolgies and production in certain directions by force. Although many people call that socialism.