Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
The Fed started the decline by shrinking the money supply by 1/3 Hoover and FDR's Soviet style Central planning economy (tax increase, government spending and regulation) gave us an economy worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Years
As you can see, in terms of the unemployment rate - that is, the percentage of the total workforce not working - the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the single largest drop in American history. Yes, I'll say that again for conservatives, just to make sure they get it: The PRE-WWII New Deal era from 1933-1940 - not the WWII era - saw the largest drop in the unemployment rate in American history. And by the way, that even includes the recession of 1937-1938.
Now, it is certainly true that the percentage drop of total unemployed was bigger in WWII than it was in the pre-WWII New Deal era. But as the data show, even by that metric, the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the second largest percentage drop in total unemployed in the 20th century, going from 12.8 million unemployed in Roosevelt's first year in office to 8.1 million unemployed at the end of his second term in 1940. That's a 36.7 percent drop - larger than the Clinton era (36.3%) and, yes conservatives, larger than the Reagan era (a mere 19%). At the absolute minimum, that would suggests the New Deal was a positive - not negative - economic force (and empirically more positive than, say, Reagan's free-market agenda).
These are the hard and fast numbers conservatives would like us all to forget with their claim that history proves massive spending packages like the New Deal will supposedly harm our economy.
The Forgotten Math: Pre-WWII New Deal Saw Biggest Drop In Unemployment Rate in American History
And you keep forgetting that your right wing austerity approach doesn't work. FDR found that out. FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.
The Recession of 19371938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki
You are an idiot. There are any number of fallacies in your post, starting with UE is a measure of how many people are out of work. It is not.
Second, so you mean we've been calling it The Great Depression when in fact it ought to be The Great Prosperity? So everything was actually hunky dory and all those historians are just misguided? You mean that 12% UE is acceptable, heck even desirable?
You are an idiot. There are any number of fallacies in your post, starting with UE is a measure of how many people are out of work. It is not.
You are an idiot. There are any number of fallacies in your post, starting with UE is a measure of how many people are out of work. It is not.
I find it ironic that you're criticizing someone else for not understanding what Unemployment is a measure of, when you've already given a completely false definition and linked to the BLS explanation which contradicted what you falsely claimed and quoted the definition which didn't say what you claimed.
Context was never your strong point, eh Frank?
Oh wait, Hoover and FDR caused the Depression.
lol
The Fed started the decline by shrinking the money supply by 1/3 Hoover and FDR's Soviet style Central planning economy (tax increase, government spending and regulation) gave us an economy worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Years
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Making shit up again Frank. Try some facts instead...
Sorry Frank, FDR and the New Deal were a HUGE success.
Top Five Years for GDP Expansion:
1942, +18.5%
1941, +17.1%
1943, +16.4%
1936, +13.0%
1934, +10.9%
Top Five Years for GDP Contraction:
1932, -13.1%
1946, -10.9%
1930, -8.6%
1931, -6.5%
2009, -3.5%
Unemployment Frank? ...maybe you missed this...
The greatest yearly increase in GDP occurred during the New Deal, AND, the LARGEST DROP IN UNEPLOYMENT in America history occurred during the New Deal...
Census document HS-29 (available in PDF). Quoting directly from Census data, here are the unemployment rates and total number of official unemployed at the beginning and end of the presidential terms since the Great Depression:
ROOSEVELT PRE-WWII NEW DEAL
1932 Unemployment Rate: 23.6% (12.8 million total unemployed)
1940 Unemployment Rate: 14.6% (8.1 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -9.0
Total unemployment percentage change: -36.7%
ROOSEVELT WWII
1941 Unemployment Rate: 9.9% (5.5 million total unemployed)
1944 Unemployment Rate: 1.2% (670,000 total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -8.7
Total unemployment percentage change: -87.9%
TRUMAN
1945 Unemployment Rate: 1.9% (1.0 million total unemployed)
1952 Unemployment Rate: 3.0% (1.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +1.1
Total unemployment percentage change: +81.0%
EISENHOWER
1953 Unemployment Rate: 2.9% (1.8 million total unemployed)
1960 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (3.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.6%
Total unemployment percentage change: +110.03%
KENNEDY
1961 Unemployment Rate: 6.7% (4.7 million total unemployed)
1963 Unemployment Rate: 5.7% (4.0 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -1.0%
Total unemployment percentage change: -13.6%
JOHNSON
1964 Unemployment Rate: 5.2% (3.7 million total unemployed)
1968 Unemployment Rate: 3.6% (2.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -1.6%
Total unemployment percentage change: -25.6%
NIXON
1969 Unemployment Rate: 3.5% (2.8 million total unemployed)
1974 Unemployment Rate: 5.6% (5.1 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.1%
Total unemployment percentage change: +82.0%
FORD
1975 Unemployment Rate: 8.5% (7.9 million total unemployed)
1976 Unemployment Rate: 7.7% (7.4 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -0.8%
Total unemployment percentage change: -6.6%
CARTER
1977 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (6.9 million total unemployed)
1980 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (7.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: 0.0
Total unemployment percentage change: +9.24%
REAGAN
1981 Unemployment Rate: 7.6% (8.2 million total unemployed)
1988 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (6.7 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -2.1%
Total unemployment percentage change: -19.0%
BUSH I
1989 Unemployment Rate: 5.3% (6.5 million total unemployed)
1992 Unemployment Rate: 7.5% (9.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.2
Total unemployment percentage change: +47.2%
CLINTON
1993 Unemployment Rate: 6.9% (8.9 million total unemployed)
2000 Unemployment Rate: 4.0% (5.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change -2.9
Total unemployment percentage change: -36.3%
As you can see, in terms of the unemployment rate - that is, the percentage of the total workforce not working - the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the single largest drop in American history. Yes, I'll say that again for conservatives, just to make sure they get it: The PRE-WWII New Deal era from 1933-1940 - not the WWII era - saw the largest drop in the unemployment rate in American history. And by the way, that even includes the recession of 1937-1938.
Now, it is certainly true that the percentage drop of total unemployed was bigger in WWII than it was in the pre-WWII New Deal era. But as the data show, even by that metric, the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the second largest percentage drop in total unemployed in the 20th century, going from 12.8 million unemployed in Roosevelt's first year in office to 8.1 million unemployed at the end of his second term in 1940. That's a 36.7 percent drop - larger than the Clinton era (36.3%) and, yes conservatives, larger than the Reagan era (a mere 19%). At the absolute minimum, that would suggests the New Deal was a positive - not negative - economic force (and empirically more positive than, say, Reagan's free-market agenda).
These are the hard and fast numbers conservatives would like us all to forget with their claim that history proves massive spending packages like the New Deal will supposedly harm our economy.
The Forgotten Math: Pre-WWII New Deal Saw Biggest Drop In Unemployment Rate in American History
And you keep forgetting that your right wing austerity approach doesn't work. FDR found that out. FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.
The Recession of 19371938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki
Pelosi said it, Val "Candidate #1 Jarrett said it; it's the new economic Doublespeak
I thought you'd hold out longer before being assimilated. I'm gonna miss you
That's not what she said. It's clear what she said if you're not wallowing in partisan nonsense.
What she said was that unemployment checks are stimulative, not that unemployment is stimulative. Nor did she say that unemployment checks are more stimulative than a job. You can argue whether or not she is correct but we've got to have an honest discussion. Implying that she thinks unemployment itself is stimulative is not honest and indicative of so much that is wrong in today's political discourse. (And yes, liberals do the same thing.)
This is consistent with the administration's Keynesian approach. Which has been a predictable failure.
If UE checks are stimulative why dont we really goose the economy and lay everyone off and just send UE checks?
That's not what she said. It's clear what she said if you're not wallowing in partisan nonsense.
What she said was that unemployment checks are stimulative, not that unemployment is stimulative. Nor did she say that unemployment checks are more stimulative than a job. You can argue whether or not she is correct but we've got to have an honest discussion. Implying that she thinks unemployment itself is stimulative is not honest and indicative of so much that is wrong in today's political discourse. (And yes, liberals do the same thing.)
This is consistent with the administration's Keynesian approach. Which has been a predictable failure.
If UE checks are stimulative why dont we really goose the economy and lay everyone off and just send UE checks?
I will try to ask you a question that requires a real human being to answer.
IF millions of people lose their jobs due to no fault of their own, and there is only 1 job opening for every 5 seeking employment, what would YOU do?
Like all Statist governments, note how FDR marks the Year Zero. They don't show how Harding, Coolidge and Mellon handled the collapse in 1920-21
This is consistent with the administration's Keynesian approach. Which has been a predictable failure.
If UE checks are stimulative why dont we really goose the economy and lay everyone off and just send UE checks?
I will try to ask you a question that requires a real human being to answer.
IF millions of people lose their jobs due to no fault of their own, and there is only 1 job opening for every 5 seeking employment, what would YOU do?
If I were a Democratic politician I would declare a crisis, offer unlimited unemployment funding, accuse my opponents of being heartless, and sail to victory.
If I had a brain I would realize that jobs are not fixed and for the right price an employer will hire additional people. I would lobby for removing price floors like min wage and balance the budget by cutting rather than raising taxes on the very people who need money to hire others. I would refrain from introducing expensive employer mandates like health iinsurance, that take away from funds necessary to hire new people. And I would support efforts to make employment a matter between employer and employee rather than subject to gov't rules or unions.
I'll just post this and let CONZ figure it out for themselves, what the implications are.
But economic research suggests that tax cuts, though difficult for politicians to resist in election season, have limited ability to bolster the flagging economy because they are essentially a supply-side remedy for a problem caused by lack of demand.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this year analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that extending the tax cuts would be the least effective way to spur the economy and reduce unemployment. The report added that tax cuts for high earners would have the smallest bang for the buck, because wealthy Americans were more likely to save their money than spend it.
The office gave higher marks to the proposal, now embraced by President Obama, to allow small businesses to write off 100 percent of their investment costs.
Neither of those options, though, would do as much to stimulate the economy as offering direct payments to the unemployed and Social Security recipients or reducing the payroll taxes of workers, the study found. But those proposals as well as aid to states and municipalities are considered politically untenable with many elected officials reluctant to even utter the word stimulus after the $787 billion stimulus.
News Analysis - Tax Cuts May Be Good Politics but Poor Stimulus - NYTimes.com
Here contards...here's some ACTUAL NUMBERS on this issue.
How about you READ THEM BEFORE you make up your tiny little minds, huh?
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf
http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2010-10.pdf
Like all Statist governments, note how FDR marks the Year Zero. They don't show how Harding, Coolidge and Mellon handled the collapse in 1920-21
Different economic causes Frank. That depression in 1920 was caused by demobilization after the war. The depression in the 1930s was caused by the collapse of an asset bubble, deflation in the farm economy and policy mistakes by the Fed.
I'll just post this and let CONZ figure it out for themselves, what the implications are.
But economic research suggests that tax cuts, though difficult for politicians to resist in election season, have limited ability to bolster the flagging economy because they are essentially a supply-side remedy for a problem caused by lack of demand.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this year analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that extending the tax cuts would be the least effective way to spur the economy and reduce unemployment. The report added that tax cuts for high earners would have the smallest bang for the buck, because wealthy Americans were more likely to save their money than spend it.
The office gave higher marks to the proposal, now embraced by President Obama, to allow small businesses to write off 100 percent of their investment costs.
Neither of those options, though, would do as much to stimulate the economy as offering direct payments to the unemployed and Social Security recipients or reducing the payroll taxes of workers, the study found. But those proposals as well as aid to states and municipalities are considered politically untenable with many elected officials reluctant to even utter the word stimulus after the $787 billion stimulus.
News Analysis - Tax Cuts May Be Good Politics but Poor Stimulus - NYTimes.com
Here contards...here's some ACTUAL NUMBERS on this issue.
How about you READ THEM BEFORE you make up your tiny little minds, huh?
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf
http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2010-10.pdf
Who would YOU rather have living next to you?
A guy getting an unemployment check
or
An empty house with a foreclosure sign on the front?
This is consistent with the administration's Keynesian approach. Which has been a predictable failure.
If UE checks are stimulative why dont we really goose the economy and lay everyone off and just send UE checks?
I will try to ask you a question that requires a real human being to answer.
IF millions of people lose their jobs due to no fault of their own, and there is only 1 job opening for every 5 seeking employment, what would YOU do?
If I were a Democratic politician I would declare a crisis, offer unlimited unemployment funding, accuse my opponents of being heartless, and sail to victory.
If I had a brain I would realize that jobs are not fixed and for the right price an employer will hire additional people. I would lobby for removing price floors like min wage and balance the budget by cutting rather than raising taxes on the very people who need money to hire others. I would refrain from introducing expensive employer mandates like health iinsurance, that take away from funds necessary to hire new people. And I would support efforts to make employment a matter between employer and employee rather than subject to gov't rules or unions.
I will try to ask you a question that requires a real human being to answer.
IF millions of people lose their jobs due to no fault of their own, and there is only 1 job opening for every 5 seeking employment, what would YOU do?
If I were a Democratic politician I would declare a crisis, offer unlimited unemployment funding, accuse my opponents of being heartless, and sail to victory.
If I had a brain I would realize that jobs are not fixed and for the right price an employer will hire additional people. I would lobby for removing price floors like min wage and balance the budget by cutting rather than raising taxes on the very people who need money to hire others. I would refrain from introducing expensive employer mandates like health iinsurance, that take away from funds necessary to hire new people. And I would support efforts to make employment a matter between employer and employee rather than subject to gov't rules or unions.
And if you were FDR at that time, you would take a modest amount of the public treasury and put people to useful work building wind rows and farm pond dams at minimum wage rather than pay them to not work. It is a sad fact that some people are so unambitious they are perfectly content to be paid not to work. But those same people doing hard labor for minimum wage are likely to take the first good permanent job they can get.
Tough love is a form of compassion.
It does "stimulate" the economy more than giving more money to already rich people.
Neither one really stimulates the economy though.
I will try to ask you a question that requires a real human being to answer.
IF millions of people lose their jobs due to no fault of their own, and there is only 1 job opening for every 5 seeking employment, what would YOU do?
If I were a Democratic politician I would declare a crisis, offer unlimited unemployment funding, accuse my opponents of being heartless, and sail to victory.
If I had a brain I would realize that jobs are not fixed and for the right price an employer will hire additional people. I would lobby for removing price floors like min wage and balance the budget by cutting rather than raising taxes on the very people who need money to hire others. I would refrain from introducing expensive employer mandates like health iinsurance, that take away from funds necessary to hire new people. And I would support efforts to make employment a matter between employer and employee rather than subject to gov't rules or unions.
Just as I thought.
If I were a Republican politician I would declare a crisis, offer to remove all worker's rights, lower wages and declare America is finally what conservatism's main goal has ALWAYS been: a plutocracy.
Keep licking the rich people's assholes Rabbi. It saves trees.
It does "stimulate" the economy more than giving more money to already rich people.
Neither one really stimulates the economy though.
Actually, this does, although not as much as actual jobs would. People with enough money to pay their bills pay them, buy food for their families, keep the tags current on their cars, etc, and all of this puts money into the economy. If they didn't have that money, a lot more people wouldn't be getting paid.
It does "stimulate" the economy more than giving more money to already rich people.
Neither one really stimulates the economy though.
Actually, this does, although not as much as actual jobs would. People with enough money to pay their bills pay them, buy food for their families, keep the tags current on their cars, etc, and all of this puts money into the economy. If they didn't have that money, a lot more people wouldn't be getting paid.
Where do you suppose the money to pay them comes from?
