Exposing The Lies of Roosevelt's Economy

[PoliticalChic]

Time to put to rest the fable that Roosevelt's economic policies were based on the situation at the time.
No, they were based on Roosevelt's megalomania.
And, a web of lies.



First, I will provide the words of Rooseveltian loving historians/economists.
Then, Roosevelt's
Then a way to test their views.
Then....ka-boom! I'll blow 'em out of the water!




1. For Liberals, Franklin Roosevelt was the cavalry riding in at the last minute to rescue an economy utterly destroyed by profit-mad Republicans.

The belief is largely based on lies told about the economy prior to the Depression, summed up this way:

"The character of the Republican ascendancy of the twenties has be pervasively negative; the character of the New Deal was overwhelmingly positive." Guess Who? by Thomas Sowell on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

BTW....that was Professors Commager and Morris of Columbia, stars of the Liberal firmament. If you went to university, this is what you were taught.
And, without personal research....believe.




2. According to another Liberal star, Arthur Schlesinger, and to the others, the evil industrialists of the 1920s kept pay low and prices high, so that workers didn't have the money to buy the products they were making.

a. "Managements disposition [in the 1920s] to maintain prices...meant that workers and farmers were denied the benefits of increases in there own productivity. The consequences was the relative decline of mass purchasing power."
Arthur Schlesinger, "The Crisis of the Old Order." Understanding Bushonomics | Center for American Progress


b. " Insofar as one accepts the theory that underconsumption explains the Depression, and I do, then one can say that the Presidents of the 1920's are to blame...."
"The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy,"
By William Edward Leuchtenburg, p.210

BTW, Professor Leuchtenburg trained more New Deal historians than any one!





4. OK? Get it straight....
So now we know how the Republicans, and the free market, prior to the vaunted FDR, screwed the economy up, causing the Depression.


Just one problem.
The facts don't back that up.
At all.





a. Just so you understand what the colleges are teaching, the 1920s were chock-a-block years for industrial growth....but it only benefitted the rich, with the poor getting poorer. Then tax cuts by Mellon and Coolidge gave more to the rich!


Based on this fable, most people could not afford to buy what they produced, i.e., "underconsumption."



What logically followed was overproduction with too few buyers for too many goods. What else could any expect but the Depression!
And...careful government planning and regulation, the cure. http://www.fee.org/files/doclib/20121119_GreatMyths2011FINALweb1.pdf




Are we clear, then, about the story that the Liberal Roosevelian historians/economists are pushing?
Any questions?



Good.....now watch me demolish same.

 

[Kimura]

Time to put to rest the fable that Roosevelt's economic policies were based on the situation at the time.
No, they were based on Roosevelt's megalomania.
And, a web of lies.



First, I will provide the words of Rooseveltian loving historians/economists.
Then, Roosevelt's
Then a way to test their views.
Then....ka-boom! I'll blow 'em out of the water!




1. For Liberals, Franklin Roosevelt was the cavalry riding in at the last minute to rescue an economy utterly destroyed by profit-mad Republicans.

The belief is largely based on lies told about the economy prior to the Depression, summed up this way:

"The character of the Republican ascendancy of the twenties has be pervasively negative; the character of the New Deal was overwhelmingly positive." Guess Who? by Thomas Sowell on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

BTW....that was Professors Commager and Morris of Columbia, stars of the Liberal firmament. If you went to university, this is what you were taught.
And, without personal research....believe.




2. According to another Liberal star, Arthur Schlesinger, and to the others, the evil industrialists of the 1920s kept pay low and prices high, so that workers didn't have the money to buy the products they were making.

a. "Managements disposition [in the 1920s] to maintain prices...meant that workers and farmers were denied the benefits of increases in there own productivity. The consequences was the relative decline of mass purchasing power."
Arthur Schlesinger, "The Crisis of the Old Order." Understanding Bushonomics | Center for American Progress


b. " Insofar as one accepts the theory that underconsumption explains the Depression, and I do, then one can say that the Presidents of the 1920's are to blame...."
"The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy,"
By William Edward Leuchtenburg, p.210

BTW, Professor Leuchtenburg trained more New Deal historians than any one!





4. OK? Get it straight....
So now we know how the Republicans, and the free market, prior to the vaunted FDR, screwed the economy up, causing the Depression.


Just one problem.
The facts don't back that up.
At all.





a. Just so you understand what the colleges are teaching, the 1920s were chock-a-block years for industrial growth....but it only benefitted the rich, with the poor getting poorer. Then tax cuts by Mellon and Coolidge gave more to the rich!


Based on this fable, most people could not afford to buy what they produced, i.e., "underconsumption."



What logically followed was overproduction with too few buyers for too many goods. What else could any expect but the Depression!
And...careful government planning and regulation, the cure. http://www.fee.org/files/doclib/20121119_GreatMyths2011FINALweb1.pdf




Are we clear, then, about the story that the Liberal Roosevelian historians/economists are pushing?
Any questions?



Good.....now watch me demolish same.

LOL

We've all seen the graphs demonstrating the joblessness in the 1930s under FDR. Most of the data clearly shows that it went from 25% in 1933 to roughly 15% in 1937. However, this data doesn't include statistics about employment through emergency relief work provided by the federal government. This was due to ideological bias by Stanley Lebergott who assembled all the data.

If we included employment from relief work in the data, unemployment under FDR went from 25% to under 10% by 1937. This a far better track record than official statistics will reveal.

Under FDR, real GDP and real per capita GDP increase to historically high rates.

You can find more HERE

Year | GDP* | Growth Rate

1929 | $977,000
1930 | $892,800 | -8.61%
1931 | $834,900 | -6.48%
1932 | $725,800 | -13.06%
1933 | $716,400 | -1.29%
1934 | $794,400 | 10.88%
1935 | $865,000 | 8.88%
1936 | $977,900 | 13.05%
1937 | $1,028,000 | 5.12%
1938 | $992,600 | -3.44%
1939 | $1,072,800 | 8.07%
1940 | $1,166,900 | 8.77%

Real Per Capita GDP:

Year | GDP | Growth rate

1929 | 6899 | 5.02%
1930 | 6213 | -9.94%
1931 | 5691 | -8.40%
1932 | 4908 | -13.75%
1933 | 4777 | -2.66%
1934 | 5114 | 7.05%
1935 | 5467 | 6.90%
1936 | 6204 | 13.48%
1937 | 6430 | 3.64%
1938 | 6126 | -4.72%
1939 | 6561 | 7.10%
1940 | 7010 | 6.84%

[url]http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/result.php[/URL]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Time to put to rest the fable that Roosevelt's economic policies were based on the situation at the time.
No, they were based on Roosevelt's megalomania.
And, a web of lies.



First, I will provide the words of Rooseveltian loving historians/economists.
Then, Roosevelt's
Then a way to test their views.
Then....ka-boom! I'll blow 'em out of the water!




1. For Liberals, Franklin Roosevelt was the cavalry riding in at the last minute to rescue an economy utterly destroyed by profit-mad Republicans.

The belief is largely based on lies told about the economy prior to the Depression, summed up this way:

"The character of the Republican ascendancy of the twenties has be pervasively negative; the character of the New Deal was overwhelmingly positive." Guess Who? by Thomas Sowell on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

BTW....that was Professors Commager and Morris of Columbia, stars of the Liberal firmament. If you went to university, this is what you were taught.
And, without personal research....believe.




2. According to another Liberal star, Arthur Schlesinger, and to the others, the evil industrialists of the 1920s kept pay low and prices high, so that workers didn't have the money to buy the products they were making.

a. "Managements disposition [in the 1920s] to maintain prices...meant that workers and farmers were denied the benefits of increases in there own productivity. The consequences was the relative decline of mass purchasing power."
Arthur Schlesinger, "The Crisis of the Old Order." Understanding Bushonomics | Center for American Progress


b. " Insofar as one accepts the theory that underconsumption explains the Depression, and I do, then one can say that the Presidents of the 1920's are to blame...."
"The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy,"
By William Edward Leuchtenburg, p.210

BTW, Professor Leuchtenburg trained more New Deal historians than any one!





4. OK? Get it straight....
So now we know how the Republicans, and the free market, prior to the vaunted FDR, screwed the economy up, causing the Depression.


Just one problem.
The facts don't back that up.
At all.





a. Just so you understand what the colleges are teaching, the 1920s were chock-a-block years for industrial growth....but it only benefitted the rich, with the poor getting poorer. Then tax cuts by Mellon and Coolidge gave more to the rich!


Based on this fable, most people could not afford to buy what they produced, i.e., "underconsumption."



What logically followed was overproduction with too few buyers for too many goods. What else could any expect but the Depression!
And...careful government planning and regulation, the cure. http://www.fee.org/files/doclib/20121119_GreatMyths2011FINALweb1.pdf




Are we clear, then, about the story that the Liberal Roosevelian historians/economists are pushing?
Any questions?



Good.....now watch me demolish same.

LOL

We've all seen the graphs demonstrating the joblessness in the 1930s under FDR. Most of the data clearly shows that it went from 25% in 1933 to roughly 15% in 1937. However, this data doesn't include statistics about employment through emergency relief work provided by the federal government. This was due to ideological bias by Stanley Lebergott who assembled all the data.

If we included employment from relief work in the data, unemployment under FDR went from 25% to under 10% by 1937. This a far better track record than official statistics will reveal.

You can find more HERE

Under FDR, real GDP and real per capita GDP increase to historically high rates.

Year | GDP* | Growth Rate

1929 | $977,000
1930 | $892,800 | -8.61%
1931 | $834,900 | -6.48%
1932 | $725,800 | -13.06%
1933 | $716,400 | -1.29%
1934 | $794,400 | 10.88%
1935 | $865,000 | 8.88%
1936 | $977,900 | 13.05%
1937 | $1,028,000 | 5.12%
1938 | $992,600 | -3.44%
1939 | $1,072,800 | 8.07%
1940 | $1,166,900 | 8.77%
* Millions of 2005 dollars
Measuring Worth - GDP result.

Real Per Capita GDP:

Year | GDP | Growth rate

1929 | 6899 | 5.02%
1930 | 6213 | -9.94%
1931 | 5691 | -8.40%
1932 | 4908 | -13.75%
1933 | 4777 | -2.66%
1934 | 5114 | 7.05%
1935 | 5467 | 6.90%
1936 | 6204 | 13.48%
1937 | 6430 | 3.64%
1938 | 6126 | -4.72%
1939 | 6561 | 7.10%
1940 | 7010 | 6.84%

Heck....it's no fun making mincemeat out of you.....that's a daily occurrence.

But I will dust up the 'historians/economists'...and FDR, too.


Stay tuned, now.

 

[Kimura]

Also, the unemployment rate increased again when FDR cut spending (bad policy advice by listening to advisers), so it went to a tad under 10% to about 12.5%, and not to the old figure of 19% in the incorrect data set.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's review: Just so you understand what the colleges are teaching, the 1920s were chock-a-block years for industrial growth....but it only benefitted the rich, with the poor getting poorer. Then tax cuts by Mellon and Coolidge gave more to the rich!

Based on this fable, most people could not afford to buy what they produced, i.e., "underconsumption."





The big government statists need to grow government....and truth is no bar!



Machiavelli earlier, but Sorel gives the Left permission to lie to the people:

" Georges Eugène Sorel (2 November 1847 in Cherbourg – 29 August 1922 in Boulogne-sur-Seine) was a French philosopher and theorist of revolutionary syndicalism. His notion of the power of myth in people's lives inspired Marxists and Fascists, it is, together with his defense of violence, the contribution for which he is most often remembered.
Georges Sorel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His identification of the need for a deliberately-conceived "myth" to sway crowds into concerted action was put to use by the Fascist and Communist movements of the 1920s and after.
http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/sorel.htm





5. Here is that view from demagogue Roosevelt, himself, taking Sorel's advice:

"Now it is worth remembering, and the cold figures of finance prove it, that during that time there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay, although those same figures proved that the cost of production fell very greatly; corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous; at the same time little of that profit was devoted to the reduction of prices. The consumer was forgotten.

Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten, and by no means an adequate proportion was even paid out in dividends--the stockholder was forgotten."
Roosevelt's Nomination Address, Chicago, Ill., July 2, 1932




This is Franklin Roosevelt presenting the 'underconsumption thesis' : "... corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous; at the same time little of that profit was devoted to the reduction of prices. The consumer was forgotten. Very little of it went into increased wages;..."





These are outright, bald-faced, lies.

Really. Lies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Need proof that Roosevelt, Schlesinger, et al were out and out liars?
Sure.

Let's review: Just so you understand what the colleges are teaching, the 1920s were chock-a-block years for industrial growth....but it only benefitted the rich, with the poor getting poorer. Then tax cuts by Mellon and Coolidge gave more to the rich!
Based on this fable, most people could not afford to buy what they produced, i.e., "underconsumption."

And that theory is what Roosevelt and his supporters used as proof of the need of his policies.





In order for the 'underconsumption thesis' to be true, these three criteria must be met:

a. During the 1920s the rich had to be getting a significantly larger proportion of the national income. "... corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous..."

b. Employees must have been receiving a smaller share of corporate income. "... Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten,..."

c. Consumers must have been consuming less of the GNP in the late '20s than in 1920. "... there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay... The consumer was forgotten....."
Those quotations are from Roosevelt himself.





So....if you are a Roosevelt aficionado....can you answer 'aye' to the above? Are the three correct?
Aye or nay???

And...if those three statements are not true.....my premise is proven.

This is momentous......take your time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Seems not to be any disagreement from the usual FDR-amen corner.
Excellent!

Remember, this thread will show that FDR and his economists/historians lied to advance the growth of government and lay the blame for the Depression on previous Republican Presidents.



OK...check your answer sheet.
I have said that, in order for the FDR's 'underconsumption thesis' to be true, these criteria must be met:
a. During the 1920s the rich had to be getting a significantly larger proportion of the national income. "... corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous..."


b. Employees must have been receiving a smaller share of corporate income. "... Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten,..."


c. Consumers must have been consuming less of the GNP in the late '20s than in 1920. "... there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay... The consumer was forgotten....."

Did you write 'aye' or 'nay'? True or false?





Time to slice and dice the Liberal propaganda.

8. In 1921, the top 5% earned 25.47% of the nation's income...in 1929, the top 5%'s share skyrocketed all the way up to ......26.09%!!!!

9. Corporate profits? They averaged 8.2% from 1900 to 1920. But what about from 1920 to 1929??? They remained at 8.2%.
For those in Rio Linda, that means that there was no upsurge in said profits during the decade.


10. But what about employee wages during the decade of the '20s?? They rose...from 55% to 60% of corporate income.

11. Wait...what about the percentage of GNP that went to consumption? Bet it fell, huh? Wrong.
It rose from 68% in 1920 to 75% in 1927, 1928, and 1929.
"Coolidge and the Historians," by Thomas B. Silver, p.124-136, and Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal," p.34-35



So....while you Leftists fail 'reality 101,' you pass 'indoctrination 101' with flying colors!
You will be awarded your "Reliable Democrat Voter" pin.
Wear it with pride!

 

[Kimura]

6. Need proof that Roosevelt, Schlesinger, et al were out and out liars?
Sure.

Let's review: Just so you understand what the colleges are teaching, the 1920s were chock-a-block years for industrial growth....but it only benefitted the rich, with the poor getting poorer. Then tax cuts by Mellon and Coolidge gave more to the rich!
Based on this fable, most people could not afford to buy what they produced, i.e., "underconsumption."

And that theory is what Roosevelt and his supporters used as proof of the need of his policies.





In order for the 'underconsumption thesis' to be true, these three criteria must be met:

a. During the 1920s the rich had to be getting a significantly larger proportion of the national income. "... corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous..."

b. Employees must have been receiving a smaller share of corporate income. "... Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten,..."

c. Consumers must have been consuming less of the GNP in the late '20s than in 1920. "... there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay... The consumer was forgotten....."
Those quotations are from Roosevelt himself.





So....if you are a Roosevelt aficionado....can you answer 'aye' to the above? Are the three correct?
Aye or nay???

And...if those three statements are not true.....my premise is proven.

This is momentous......take your time.

momentous....LOL

First of all, underconsumption theory basically explains that depressions, recessions and stagnation are a result of consumer demand and its relation to the production of real goods and services. It's exactly the income which is derived from the production of real goods and services that is directly correlated as to whether underconsumption is occuring in the first place. The income extraction from the purchasing and selling of assets is tangential given the nature of underconsumption.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Need proof that Roosevelt, Schlesinger, et al were out and out liars?
Sure.

Let's review: Just so you understand what the colleges are teaching, the 1920s were chock-a-block years for industrial growth....but it only benefitted the rich, with the poor getting poorer. Then tax cuts by Mellon and Coolidge gave more to the rich!
Based on this fable, most people could not afford to buy what they produced, i.e., "underconsumption."

And that theory is what Roosevelt and his supporters used as proof of the need of his policies.





In order for the 'underconsumption thesis' to be true, these three criteria must be met:

a. During the 1920s the rich had to be getting a significantly larger proportion of the national income. "... corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous..."

b. Employees must have been receiving a smaller share of corporate income. "... Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten,..."

c. Consumers must have been consuming less of the GNP in the late '20s than in 1920. "... there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay... The consumer was forgotten....."
Those quotations are from Roosevelt himself.





So....if you are a Roosevelt aficionado....can you answer 'aye' to the above? Are the three correct?
Aye or nay???

And...if those three statements are not true.....my premise is proven.

This is momentous......take your time.

momentous....LOL

First of all, underconsumption theory basically explains that depressions, recessions and stagnation are a result of consumer demand and its relation to the production of real goods and services. It's exactly the income which is derived from the production of real goods and services that is directly correlated as to whether underconsumption is occuring in the first place. The income extraction from the purchasing and selling of assets is tangential given the nature of underconsumption.

Said theory was the excuse that FDR used to enforce tyranny on the nation.

It was built on lies.

And, you dope....I destroyed the bogus theory in the post above yours.

 

[Kimura]

6. Need proof that Roosevelt, Schlesinger, et al were out and out liars?
Sure.

Let's review: Just so you understand what the colleges are teaching, the 1920s were chock-a-block years for industrial growth....but it only benefitted the rich, with the poor getting poorer. Then tax cuts by Mellon and Coolidge gave more to the rich!
Based on this fable, most people could not afford to buy what they produced, i.e., "underconsumption."

And that theory is what Roosevelt and his supporters used as proof of the need of his policies.





In order for the 'underconsumption thesis' to be true, these three criteria must be met:

a. During the 1920s the rich had to be getting a significantly larger proportion of the national income. "... corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous..."

b. Employees must have been receiving a smaller share of corporate income. "... Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten,..."

c. Consumers must have been consuming less of the GNP in the late '20s than in 1920. "... there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay... The consumer was forgotten....."
Those quotations are from Roosevelt himself.





So....if you are a Roosevelt aficionado....can you answer 'aye' to the above? Are the three correct?
Aye or nay???

And...if those three statements are not true.....my premise is proven.

This is momentous......take your time.

momentous....LOL

First of all, underconsumption theory basically explains that depressions, recessions and stagnation are a result of consumer demand and its relation to the production of real goods and services. It's exactly the income which is derived from the production of real goods and services that is directly correlated as to whether underconsumption is occuring in the first place. The income extraction from the purchasing and selling of assets is tangential given the nature of underconsumption.

Said theory was the excuse that FDR used to enforce tyranny on the nation.

It was built on lies.

And, you dope....I destroyed the bogus theory in the post above yours.

Um....no you didn't. Please provide me with any semblance of data. I provided you with data for real GDP and real per capita GDP during the time period.

FDR was instrumental in saving this country but you can continue you ahistorical and nonsensical posts if you wish.

A tyrant, lol. That's how you would define a man that helped defeat the Nazis and fascists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

momentous....LOL

First of all, underconsumption theory basically explains that depressions, recessions and stagnation are a result of consumer demand and its relation to the production of real goods and services. It's exactly the income which is derived from the production of real goods and services that is directly correlated as to whether underconsumption is occuring in the first place. The income extraction from the purchasing and selling of assets is tangential given the nature of underconsumption.

Said theory was the excuse that FDR used to enforce tyranny on the nation.

It was built on lies.

And, you dope....I destroyed the bogus theory in the post above yours.

Um....no you didn't. Please provide me with any semblance of data. I provided you with data for real GDP and real per capita GDP during the time period.

FDR was instrumental in saving this country but you can continue you ahistorical and nonsensical posts if you wish.

A tyrant, lol. That's how you would define a man that helped defeat the Nazis and fascists.

8,9,10, and 11 above......the data is the exact opposite of FDR's claims.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As explained in an earlier OP, Franklin Roosevelt was clueless when it came to the economy. He not only accepted the 'underconsumption theory,' but he based his policies on same. (Marxist economist James Devine has pointed to two possible roles for underconsumption in the business cycle and the origins of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Great Collapse/Index & Introduction)




Now....follow and you will find that the fake 'causes' of the Depression, espoused by Roosevelt's economists/historians, are actually a design to hide his anti-Constitution agenda.

12. Now wait....there is the possibility that FDR wasn't quite that dumb...and that he knew the theory was bogus. But he knew that advancing the idea fit perfectly into his attempts to grow government in size and in regulatory power.
Demonizing Republicans was just a bonus.



One indication of this is who he picked for his 'Brain Trust" "....a group of Columbia University academics who helped develop policy recommendations leading up to Roosevelt's 1932 election as President. [Rexford] Tugwell subsequently served in FDR's administration for four years and was one of the chief intellectual contributors to his New Deal."
Rexford Tugwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. It is a fact that none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists. Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said:
"Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions [that's the Constitution] must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress. A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.63

That's what a Progressive is...and anti-Constitution guy. FDR= Progressive.






b. Tugwell was opposed to any private business not controlled by the government. General Hugh Johnson was working with Tugwell on a bill to create the NRA, and gave Francis Perkins the book by Rafaello Viglione, "The Corporate State," in which the neat Italian system of dictatorship for the benefit of the people was glowingly described." Francis Perkins, "The Roosevelt I Knew."
The NRA was copied from Mussolini's corporative system.
Ibid., p.47


c. Francis Perkins questioned whether General Johnson 'really understood the democratic process..." New Dealers had no problem with the fascist nature of their plans.

Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to the Soviet Union.

 

[Kimura]

Said theory was the excuse that FDR used to enforce tyranny on the nation.

It was built on lies.

And, you dope....I destroyed the bogus theory in the post above yours.

Um....no you didn't. Please provide me with any semblance of data. I provided you with data for real GDP and real per capita GDP during the time period.

FDR was instrumental in saving this country but you can continue you ahistorical and nonsensical posts if you wish.

A tyrant, lol. That's how you would define a man that helped defeat the Nazis and fascists.

8,9,10, and 11 above......the data is the exact opposite of FDR's claims.

The Depression obviously led to a collapse in corporate profits, nobody in their right mind would say otherwise. The corporate sector went from like 10$ billion if profits (1929-ish, around 10% of GDP) to total losses of $1.5 billion by 1932 (2.5% of GDP more of less)




1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935
Total Corporate 10595 4291 357 -1480 1728 3079 4216
Domestic industries (including financial industry 10363 4154 361 -1446 1730 3019 4057

Source: BEA

 

[Kimura]

By the way, when FDR took office in 1933, every single bank in the country had closed its doors and people couldn't cash checks or get cash out of the bank. Unemployment was at 25% and higher in certain parts of the country. Farm prices collapsed by 50% and foreclosures increased by the tend of thousands.

The New Deal was actually anemic, there should have been more spending, but with war mobilization, increased war spending, it doubled Gross National Product. Civilian unemployment decreased from 14% in 1940 to 2% in 1943, with an addition to the labor force of ten million.

The result of full employment with high wages was a massive decrease in overall income inequality. Big families that had been indigent in the 1930s found themselves with more wages earners and these families found themselves in the top one-third income bracket.

Here's the bottom line and historical reality: the New Deal prevented whole swaths of the America people from literally starving to death and provided much needed assistance to families.

 

[PoliticalChic]

momentous....LOL

First of all, underconsumption theory basically explains that depressions, recessions and stagnation are a result of consumer demand and its relation to the production of real goods and services. It's exactly the income which is derived from the production of real goods and services that is directly correlated as to whether underconsumption is occuring in the first place. The income extraction from the purchasing and selling of assets is tangential given the nature of underconsumption.

Said theory was the excuse that FDR used to enforce tyranny on the nation.

It was built on lies.

And, you dope....I destroyed the bogus theory in the post above yours.

Um....no you didn't. Please provide me with any semblance of data. I provided you with data for real GDP and real per capita GDP during the time period.

FDR was instrumental in saving this country but you can continue you ahistorical and nonsensical posts if you wish.

A tyrant, lol. That's how you would define a man that helped defeat the Nazis and fascists.

Sometimes I wonder why I spend any time at all dispensing with the idiocy that you post.

Not only have you proven time and again that you have less than zero knowledge, or understanding, of either economics or history.


Now you have proven that the English language is one of your challenges.

Did you actually write this:

"A tyrant, lol. That's how you would define a man that helped defeat the Nazis and fascists."????

Did you?





Do you have such a tenuous grasp of the language that you don't realize that the claim you are making is that warring with Nazis, and fascists ...and being a tyrant are mutually exclusive????


You imbecile....was Joseph Stalin a tyrant???

Did he fight the Nazis and fascists.....after he supported, taught, and allied himself with them....????





Waiting for you to say something intelligent is like putting a candle in the window for Jimmy Hoffa.

 

[Kimura]

Said theory was the excuse that FDR used to enforce tyranny on the nation.

Maybe he should have done nothing, we'd be speaking Japanese and German.

It was built on lies.

All politicians lie, get over it.

And, you dope....I destroyed the bogus theory in the post above yours.

No, you didn't. I gave you real GDP and real GDP per capita during that time period. The New Deal had an effect, it could have been better, but it clearly demonstrates an increase in aggregate demand. GDP is not a measure of per capita personal income or corporate profits, genius.

Sometimes I wonder why I spend any time at all dispensing with the idiocy that you post.

Not only have you proven time and again that you have less than zero knowledge, or understanding, of either economics or history.

Unlike you, I have an extensive background in economics and finance. You, on the other hand, are the queen of cut/paste. You don't have an original idea in that skull of yours. None. Zip. Nada. If you took a trip down to your local library, besides listening to right wing nuts, you'd see how wrong about history you really are. The US has historically been a centre-left country. The right wing fantasy you subscribe to has never been part of our history.

Do you have such a tenuous grasp of the language that you don't realize that the claim you are making is that warring with Nazis, and fascists ...and being a tyrant are mutually exclusive????

Oh Jesus. Was FDR instrumental in the defeat of Nazism and Fascism? Yes or No? If you compare stacking the Supreme Court with the likes of Hitler, I really don't think we have anything left to discuss.

Did he fight the Nazis and fascists.....after he supported, taught, and allied himself with them....????

The right conspiracy machine at work. FDR supported Hitler and Mussolini. You've also just insulted the multitude of Americans who fought and died for this country during WWII. Congratulations!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Said theory was the excuse that FDR used to enforce tyranny on the nation.

Maybe he should have done nothing, we'd speaking Japanese and German.

It was built on lies.

All politicians lie, get over it.



No, you didn't. I gave you real GDP and real GDP per capita during that time period. The New Deal had an effect, it could have better, but it clearly demonstrates an increase in aggregate demand. GDP is not a measure of per capita personal income or corporate profits, genius.



Not only have you proven time and again that you have less than zero knowledge, or understanding, of either economics or history.

Unlike you, I have an extensive background in economics and finance. You, on the other hand, are the queen of cut/paste. You don't have an original idea in that skull of yours. None. Zip. Nada. If you took a trip down to your local library, besides listening to right wing nuts, you'd see how wrong about history you really are. The US has historically been a centre-left country. The right wing fantasy you subscribe to has never been part of our history.

Do you have such a tenuous grasp of the language that you don't realize that the claim you are making is that warring with Nazis, and fascists ...and being a tyrant are mutually exclusive????

Oh Jesus. Was FDR instrumental in the defeat of Nazism and Fascism? Yes or No? If you compare stacking the Supreme Court with the likes of Hitler, I really don't think we have anything left to discuss.

Did he fight the Nazis and fascists.....after he supported, taught, and allied himself with them....????

The right conspiracy machine at work. FDR supported Hitler and Mussolini. You've also just insulted the multitude of Americans who fought and died for this country during WWII. Congratulations![/QUOTE]






Did you actually write this:

"A tyrant, lol. That's how you would define a man that helped defeat the Nazis and fascists."????

 

[PoliticalChic]

13. Textbooks galore point out that President Franklin Roosevelt left a permanent stamp on the American economy. But no textbook in print explains how Roosevelt promoted what is probably the greatest economic myth of the twentieth century: the view that capitalism caused the Great Depression.


During the 1932 campaign against Herbert Hoover, Roosevelt repeated in speech after speech his view that free markets had failed America. During that election year, the U.S. economy was in tatters: 25 percent unemployment, a plummeting stock market, and rampant pessimism sapped American morale. To audiences all over the nation, Roosevelt expounded his theory of why capitalism had failed.

During the campaign Roosevelt often flayed the capitalists, whose power had "become so disproportionate as to dry up purchasing power within any other group. . . . It is a proper concern of the Government to use wise measures of regulation which will bring this purchasing power back to normal."



In another speech, he said that "if the process of concentration goes on at the same rate, at the end of another century we shall have all American industry controlled by a dozen corporations, and run by perhaps a hundred men. Put plainly, we are steering a steady course toward economic oligarchy, if we are not there already."
Samuel I. Rosenman, ed., The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (New York: Random House, 1938), I
Franklin Roosevelt and the Greatest Economic Myth of the Twentieth Century : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education



But...as this thread shows....it was all built of lies.
The underconsumption theory for the provenance of the Depression is not supported by the facts.




Then again....even if he lied to accrue the power, wasn't it all necessary to end the Depression.

NO.
His polices actually extended the suffering and the Depression by years.

 

[jwoodie]

One of the (many) problems with Liberal argumentation is that correlation is assumed to represent causation without any theoretical justification (e.g., the stock market goes up when the Cardinals win the World Series). Thus, higher taxes are said to produce higher incomes without any logical nexus.

With respect to FDR, his policies had little effect on the economy. He even refused to meet with Hoover after the 1932 election in order to place greater blame on his predecessor (sound familiar?), thus necessitating a future Constitutional Amendment to move up the inauguration date. However, he was a political mastermind who pacified the masses with lofty rhetoric (and possibly avoided a workers' revolution).

Perhaps his worst offense was concealing his terminal illness from the public during the 1944 election (he survived less than six months). Harry Truman turned out be be a pretty good President, but FDR had no right to defraud the voters by taking away their right to determine who was going to serve as President during the next four years.

 

[regent]

One of the (many) problems with Liberal argumentation is that correlation is assumed to represent causation without any theoretical justification (e.g., the stock market goes up when the Cardinals win the World Series). Thus, higher taxes are said to produce higher incomes without any logical nexus.

With respect to FDR, his policies had little effect on the economy. He even refused to meet with Hoover after the 1932 election in order to place greater blame on his predecessor (sound familiar?), thus necessitating a future Constitutional Amendment to move up the inauguration date. However, he was a political mastermind who pacified the masses with lofty rhetoric (and possibly avoided a workers' revolution).

Perhaps his worst offense was concealing his terminal illness from the public during the 1944 election (he survived less than six months). Harry Truman turned out be be a pretty good President, but FDR had no right to defraud the voters by taking away their right to determine who was going to serve as President during the next four years.

If FDR were still alive we might still be electing him. Six months of FDR might be better than eight years of Bush.
I wonder how many Americans realize how much of FDR is still with us, how many Americans get electricity from the New Deal dams, a Social Security, or unemployment check, belongs to a union, drives over the Triborough Bridge, has a bank account protected by FDIC and so on. FDR is still with us, as is Bush's Iraq.