Exposing The Lies of Roosevelt's Economy

[jasonnfree]

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.

The right wing seems to like FDR's social security also. At the gym I go to regularly, the "conservative" retirees all collect social security, while they bitch about how this country is being destroyed by socialism. "I paid into it" say they. "So opt out of it once you get back all you paid in, which is only a few years" Say I. "Set yourselves free of big government and let the miracle of the free market work it's magic in your lives" also say I. None do.
PC is a robot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

reggie, reggie, reggie.....

After all your posts bowing to Rooseveltian historian, not a peep from you about the fact that I just proved that they....and FDR.....lied about the periods leading up to the Depression....the one that his programs extended.

Here....another chance:




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. Here are the facts:

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



And you say?

 

[Camp]

FDR made steel pennies in 1943. When I was a kid I collected them. I would go to the bank and exchange rolls of pennies, go through them, and pick out the ones I needed for my collection. I saved all the steel cents. Today they are worth as much as .15 cents each. I have jars of them and I'm saving them for my grandchildren. America is still benefiting from FDR.

 

[PoliticalChic]

FDR made steel pennies in 1943. When I was a kid I collected them. I would go to the bank and exchange rolls of pennies, go through them, and pick out the ones I needed for my collection. I saved all the steel cents. Today they are worth as much as .15 cents each. I have jars of them and I'm saving them for my grandchildren. America is still benefiting from FDR.

Well, well..... a "penny for your thoughts" post.


But nothing about the post above yours.

We both know why....don't we.

 

[Camp]

You know we could save a lot of money today if we stopped using copper to make pennies. FDR was a guy who had vision. It cost more than a penny in copper to make a penny. We should make pennies from melted down scrap metal like FDR did.

 

[Camp]

FDR made steel pennies in 1943. When I was a kid I collected them. I would go to the bank and exchange rolls of pennies, go through them, and pick out the ones I needed for my collection. I saved all the steel cents. Today they are worth as much as .15 cents each. I have jars of them and I'm saving them for my grandchildren. America is still benefiting from FDR.

Well, well..... a "penny for your thoughts" post.


But nothing about the post above yours.

We both know why....don't we.

Economics always bored me. I don't have the expertise or knowledge to to debate the economics of the 20's and 30's. Nor do I have the interest that would motivate me to cram in some studying. I like the stuff FDR built that still stands today. Maybe it was bad economic policy but I still love that Blue Ridge Parkway. If you never built nothing with your hands and your back you might not appreciate it. If you have built something with pure labor and skill, you would appreciate the stuff FDR built that still stands today.

Economic history for me is stuff people discuss and try to apply to the present. Mostly I figure it can't really be done because so many factors just make drastic changes over time. Stuff that may have meant a lot in the 20's might be totally out of applicability today. Stuff you build to be used and to benefit people becomes non applicable only after it has fallen apart. So far a lot of FDR stuff is still standing. Dams are still providing electric, irrigation and jobs. Roads and National Parks he built are still being used, still bring jobs to communities, still serving the purpose FDR created them for.

So, in the long run and the big picture, you can slam FDR over some of his policies and claim he should have done things a different way, but he is the one who did stuff his way and it turned out better than anyone you can name, economically speaking. He made investments in America and America is still reaping the dividends decades and years after the guy is dead and buried and 80 years after he started building stuff. Plus he instigated a cheaper way to make pennies.

 

[jwoodie]

FDR made steel pennies in 1943. When I was a kid I collected them. I would go to the bank and exchange rolls of pennies, go through them, and pick out the ones I needed for my collection. I saved all the steel cents. Today they are worth as much as .15 cents each. I have jars of them and I'm saving them for my grandchildren. America is still benefiting from FDR.

Well, well..... a "penny for your thoughts" post.


But nothing about the post above yours.

We both know why....don't we.

Economics always bored me. I don't have the expertise or knowledge to to debate the economics of the 20's and 30's. Nor do I have the interest that would motivate me to cram in some studying. I like the stuff FDR built that still stands today. Maybe it was bad economic policy but I still love that Blue Ridge Parkway. If you never built nothing with your hands and your back you might not appreciate it. If you have built something with pure labor and skill, you would appreciate the stuff FDR built that still stands today.

Economic history for me is stuff people discuss and try to apply to the present. Mostly I figure it can't really be done because so many factors just make drastic changes over time. Stuff that may have meant a lot in the 20's might be totally out of applicability today. Stuff you build to be used and to benefit people becomes non applicable only after it has fallen apart. So far a lot of FDR stuff is still standing. Dams are still providing electric, irrigation and jobs. Roads and National Parks he built are still being used, still bring jobs to communities, still serving the purpose FDR created them for.

So, in the long run and the big picture, you can slam FDR over some of his policies and claim he should have done things a different way, but he is the one who did stuff his way and it turned out better than anyone you can name, economically speaking. He made investments in America and America is still reaping the dividends decades and years after the guy is dead and buried and 80 years after he started building stuff. Plus he instigated a cheaper way to make pennies.

Steel pennies were made to conserve copper for the was effort, not to save money. That is why we went back to copper pennies after the war.

Just as WW1 made us a world power, WW2 made us into a super power (not FDR's economic policies). Unfortunately, his foreign policy of appeasement made the USSR into a super power also.

His greatest contribution to winning WW2 was letting the generals run the war. Fortunately, his successor had the guts to drop the bomb and keep the Soviets out of Japan and Western Europe.

 

[mamooth]

A summary of FDR-hater kookery:

1. Government spending during the depression, which made infrastructure that lasted, had no effect on ending the depression.

2. Government spending to build weapons for WWII, which made nothing useful to the economy, instantly ended the depression.

Strange, eh? According to the FDR-hating kooks, a stimulus only works if you build weapons with the money.

No, I don't expect PC to explain the hilarious inconsistencies in the babbling that she calls "economic theory". Consistency and PC have never been on speaking terms.

 

[regent]

Well, well..... a "penny for your thoughts" post.


But nothing about the post above yours.

We both know why....don't we.

Economics always bored me. I don't have the expertise or knowledge to to debate the economics of the 20's and 30's. Nor do I have the interest that would motivate me to cram in some studying. I like the stuff FDR built that still stands today. Maybe it was bad economic policy but I still love that Blue Ridge Parkway. If you never built nothing with your hands and your back you might not appreciate it. If you have built something with pure labor and skill, you would appreciate the stuff FDR built that still stands today.

Economic history for me is stuff people discuss and try to apply to the present. Mostly I figure it can't really be done because so many factors just make drastic changes over time. Stuff that may have meant a lot in the 20's might be totally out of applicability today. Stuff you build to be used and to benefit people becomes non applicable only after it has fallen apart. So far a lot of FDR stuff is still standing. Dams are still providing electric, irrigation and jobs. Roads and National Parks he built are still being used, still bring jobs to communities, still serving the purpose FDR created them for.

So, in the long run and the big picture, you can slam FDR over some of his policies and claim he should have done things a different way, but he is the one who did stuff his way and it turned out better than anyone you can name, economically speaking. He made investments in America and America is still reaping the dividends decades and years after the guy is dead and buried and 80 years after he started building stuff. Plus he instigated a cheaper way to make pennies.

Steel pennies were made to conserve copper for the was effort, not to save money. That is why we went back to copper pennies after the war.

Just as WW1 made us a world power, WW2 made us into a super power (not FDR's economic policies). Unfortunately, his foreign policy of appeasement made the USSR into a super power also.

His greatest contribution to winning WW2 was letting the generals run the war. Fortunately, his successor had the guts to drop the bomb and keep the Soviets out of Japan and Western Europe.

Well FDR is the one that authorized the A-bomb construction and it was at great cost. The biggest fault I find with FDR's war policy was letting some generals keep their job including MacArthur. FDR gave MacArthur permission to retake the Philippines for MacArthur's ego when some had decided it was not necessary for our march to Japan. True Generals made mistakes but this mistake was made not to push the war against Japan but for MacArthur to say "I have returned."

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Thanks for listing all the socialist boondoggles that FDR inflicted on us. It's true the vast mass of numskulls who can vote in this country might still elect FDR, but that isn't a positive reflection on him.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A summary of FDR-hater kookery:

1. Government spending during the depression, which made infrastructure that lasted, had no effect on ending the depression.

2. Government spending to build weapons for WWII, which made nothing useful to the economy, instantly ended the depression.

Strange, eh? According to the FDR-hating kooks, a stimulus only works if you build weapons with the money.

No, I don't expect PC to explain the hilarious inconsistencies in the babbling that she calls "economic theory". Consistency and PC have never been on speaking terms.

Let's just pretend that you have any cerebral capacity....I know, quite a stretch...but I'm about to give you an opportunity to actually show you belong in an adult discussion.


Here, from an earlier post is the essence of the thread: FDR and his economists/historians built a web of lies to enable absurd policies....which actually extended the Depression.



I challenge you to look at his statements, and then the actual economic data of the era....and explain the discrepancies.



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....."

True or false?





Time to slice and dice the Liberal propaganda. Here are the facts:

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



You're on.

 

[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.

Thanks for listing all the socialist boondoggles that FDR inflicted on us. It's true the vast mass of numskulls who can vote in this country might still elect FDR, but that isn't a positive reflection on him.

The American people elected FDR four times, and to a politician that's a pretty positive reflection. Add to that Republicans then changed the Constitution so FDR might keep that four-times record, is also a positive. And still more positive reflection: American historians have always placed FDR in the top three greatest American president bracket since they began rating presidents. Pretty positive stuff. By the way, how's Bush doing?

 

[mamooth]

Let's just pretend that you have any cerebral capacity....I know, quite a stretch...but I'm about to give you an opportunity to actually show you belong in an adult discussion.

Quit running, chickenshit. Explain why you're claiming stimulus spending only works if you build bombs. Give us the economic justification for your kook theory.

I challenge you to look at his statements, and then the actual economic data of the era....and explain the discrepancies.

Actual economic data was that when FDR spent, the depression lessened. When Republicans forced him to stop spending, the depression returned. FDR's policies, when Republicans allowed them to be implemented, ended the depression. That's history, and your fevered fudging attempts can't rewrite it.

I have said that,

You've babbled out one of your incoherent unibomber manifestos where you string together a pack of unrelated factoids and then make a mysterious leap to a totally unsupported conclusion. I doubt anyone was impressed.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Thanks for listing all the socialist boondoggles that FDR inflicted on us. It's true the vast mass of numskulls who can vote in this country might still elect FDR, but that isn't a positive reflection on him.

The American people elected FDR four times, and to a politician that's a pretty positive reflection.

FDR accomplished that only by using all those vast socialist boondoggles to buy votes. He directed the spending to parts of the country he needed to win in order to win the election. The vast bulk of the spending occurred right before the election. FDR was a master at manipulating the mob. He's a classic example of why democracy is a practical joke.

Add to that Republicans then changed the Constitution so FDR might keep that four-times record, is also a positive.

Yeah, and Al Capone thought getting away with murder time after time was a positive. However, those who believe in freedom and the Constitution understand that it was a tragedy for this con artist to be the president of the United States.

And still more positive reflection: American historians have always placed FDR in the top three greatest American president bracket since they began rating presidents. Pretty positive stuff. By the way, how's Bush doing?

You mean the official state propagandists who are beholden to FDR for their professions and incomes named him as the greatest mob master of all time? Who would have imagined that to be possible?

 

[bripat9643]

Let's just pretend that you have any cerebral capacity....I know, quite a stretch...but I'm about to give you an opportunity to actually show you belong in an adult discussion.

Quit running, chickenshit. Explain why you're claiming stimulus spending only works if you build bombs. Give us the economic justification for your kook theory.

I challenge you to look at his statements, and then the actual economic data of the era....and explain the discrepancies.

Actual economic data was that when FDR spent, the depression lessened. When Republicans forced him to stop spending, the depression returned. FDR's policies, when Republicans allowed them to be implemented, ended the depression. That's history, and your fevered fudging attempts can't rewrite it.

Hmmmm . . . . . no, that isn't what the economic data shows. Recessions always end on their own without government interference of any kind. Roosevelt, like Obama, simply had the good fortune to get inaugurated when the downturn was at its peak. It would have ended even sooner if it wasn't for all the counter productive measures that were passed during the Hoover administration, and that FDR endorsed. Measures like tripling the top marginal rate on income tax, and the Smoot Hawley tariff. Everything FDR did extended a sharp recession into a long depression.

You can read all about FDR's disastrous policies here:

The Free Market: How FDR Made the Depression Worse

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's just pretend that you have any cerebral capacity....I know, quite a stretch...but I'm about to give you an opportunity to actually show you belong in an adult discussion.

Quit running, chickenshit. Explain why you're claiming stimulus spending only works if you build bombs. Give us the economic justification for your kook theory.

I challenge you to look at his statements, and then the actual economic data of the era....and explain the discrepancies.

Actual economic data was that when FDR spent, the depression lessened. When Republicans forced him to stop spending, the depression returned. FDR's policies, when Republicans allowed them to be implemented, ended the depression. That's history, and your fevered fudging attempts can't rewrite it.

I have said that,

You've babbled out one of your incoherent unibomber manifestos where you string together a pack of unrelated factoids and then make a mysterious leap to a totally unsupported conclusion. I doubt anyone was impressed.

I believe that my role, here, is to provide the truth and disabuse others of the inaccuracies that government schooling imposes.

When I lay out specifics that I can then prove are untrue, i.e, FDR's fabrications about the causes of the Depression, some who have not made up their minds to accept the Leftist propaganda, that you have accepted, have something to compare it to.

That was exactly the situation in the post you ignored.

By ignoring the facts that I provided, you, in effect, admitted their truth.


And that is all I wanted.
Thank you for your inadvertent aid in my task.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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]Measuring Worth - GDP result.[/URL]

Isn't that a little like counting people collecting unemployment as employed?

FDR had the worst economic track record in human history, worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Years.

Please feel free to defend it

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Is that what caused the FDR Depression?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's just pretend that you have any cerebral capacity....I know, quite a stretch...but I'm about to give you an opportunity to actually show you belong in an adult discussion.

Quit running, chickenshit. Explain why you're claiming stimulus spending only works if you build bombs. Give us the economic justification for your kook theory.

I challenge you to look at his statements, and then the actual economic data of the era....and explain the discrepancies.

Actual economic data was that when FDR spent, the depression lessened. When Republicans forced him to stop spending, the depression returned. FDR's policies, when Republicans allowed them to be implemented, ended the depression. That's history, and your fevered fudging attempts can't rewrite it.

I have said that,

You've babbled out one of your incoherent unibomber manifestos where you string together a pack of unrelated factoids and then make a mysterious leap to a totally unsupported conclusion. I doubt anyone was impressed.

That's not what happened at all, but keep lying. On you it looks good

Did your AGW Models tell you Republicans forced FDR to cut spending in 1937?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I grew up being taught, well indoctrinated is more accurate, that:

1. Joe McCarthy HUAC started a Red Scare and Blacklisted Innocent Hollywood writers

2. LBJ was a Civil Right Hero

3. FDR Saved the US Economy from the Great Depression.

What I've learned since is that they were three lies one biggest than the other and none of them bears any resemblance to the Truth

FDR presided over the worst economy in human history. He was an economic Jihadist, a Central Planner who strangled a new part of the US economy on a daily basis. The American people had no idea where the Federal Government was going to strike next. It was so bad, FDR was so arrogant, he presumed to instruct Kosher butcher on how they should sell their chickens. The case went to the Supreme Court. Think about that for a second. FDR who like Obama never spent a day at work in his life thought he knew how to handle chickens better than a Kosher butcher. He was going to decide what people earned, he was going to tell business how to operate. He railed against Capitalism itself. And, until Obama, he was the biggest fucking Fool to hold the office of the Presidency

That's why the FDR Depression lasted so long.