New Deal Prolonged Depression by Seven Years

UCLA Newsroom ^ | 10/07/2008 | Meg Sullivan

[sono]

wo UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

[Petronski]

The "Depression" was a set of economic effects.

If you want your own definition of a depression, that's fine. Don't expect everyone to lock step with you.

If you think Wikipedia is unbiased, you must also listen to and watch the MSM for your information.

Of course, since I do not, you present a straw man.

You posted an unattributed, unreferenced graphic from a web site that is liberal.

I notice you did not say the data on that graphic is wrong.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I do not say the data is wrong, because, if it is unattributed and unreferenced, it is as good as fictional. As I said, go ahead and make your own. It's fun!

Own definition? What the hell do you think any economic state is but the effect of economic factors? Duh.

Straw man? I love it when people who probably have no training in formal logic throw the terms of logical fallacies out there...fallaciously. It's fun! (There was no straw-man argument. The closest I came to a formal, logical fallacy was argumentum ad hominem, associative. Such a fallacy runs: if it was from Wikipedia, it must be biased, because other articles on Wikipedia are biased, and obviously, most likely, not ALL articles are biased. But I did not commit that fallacy. Wikipedia is known to have a leftist tilt. Any article that discusses the Great Depression will probably come to the defense of FDR's New Deal. I hope Wikipedia is not your sole source of info. It's OK as a very quick overview for a given topic. But if you want ‘good’ information, you need to drill down into other sources.)

[Petronski]

I do not say the data is wrong, because, if it is unattributed and unreferenced, it is as good as fictional.

"As good as fictional" is your way of saying you have no presentation of evidence that the data are false.

What the hell do you think any economic state is but the effect of economic factors?

"Depression" has a definition. Look it up.

There was no straw-man argument.

I never claimed wikipedia has no bias, yet you sought to discredit to me by suggesting I had said so.

You're really not very good at this. Do you have any formal training in economics or logic?

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I think anyone that reads our posts will know who has the greater training and study in logic and in presenting cohesive thought.

You think that by taking each of my lines, copying it, putting it in italics, and then responding to it creates a logical rebuttal. It doesn't — mainly because you are incapable of comprehending what I wrote. The data can not be substantiated because it has no reference, you dolt. Therefore it cannot be proved false, because it would be tantamount to proving someone’s imagination false.

I discredited your argument because it was based on fiction. “Straw man” has a definition. Go look it up.

I am very good at this. I'm trying to teach you so that you don't embarrass yourself in the future.

So far your argument has been: “The Depression ended during WWII because the GDP was on-the-rise. Here is my evidence, a graphic with lines going up and down that does not cite what those lines, which supposedly show data, where that data came from.”

My argument was: “The economic effects of the Depression, that is, those manifold economic indicators that define an economic Depression, were not ended by FDR's liberal New Deal policies, they were not ended by America's involvement in WWII though they were alleviated somewhat and temporarily. The effects of the Depression, that is, those manifold economic indicators that define an economic Depression, continued through into the early 1950’s. Even if I granted the data in your graphic, I countered by saying GDP is not the sole indicator of the economic effects of our Depression. The economic effect of the Depression did not end until the government lifted its Depression-era and war-era regulations on business. I cited some respected economists for my backing. Those economists happen to be conservative. You cited Wikipedia, a source of information that does not go through academic review and that has a liberal tilt.”

What's surprising is that I even have to go through this exercise for you. This is supposed to be a conservative forum. Just putting my conservative sources against your liberal sources should have given you cause to open your eyes. But I suspect your ego entered into the argument, as it so often does in these threads, and ruined the exchange of information. Go ahead now, stick your tongue out and say, “No! It was YOUR ego that blah blah blah.”

[Petronski]

You present bluster and personal attacks.

Therefore it cannot be proved false, because it would be tantamount to proving someone’s imagination false.

Wrong. I presented historical GNP data, in the form of a chart. If it is false, present the accurate data. Or, continue with the personal attacks.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I really don't have time to list all the stats and factors — not to mention it is complicated (from the tweaks to the economy during the 1920’s and that fateful errors made that exacerbated the situation, down to the subsidies for farmers to destroy food when there was widespread hunger, the imposition of the minimum wage, the GDP being dispersed to alphabet-soup governmental agencies that created an incestuous relation between the budget and the GDP).

If you want to see how I came to my understanding, I would recommend these books:

Powell's “FDR's Folly” — Probably the best single source that explains in simple terms what FDR did and how it prolonged the Depression.

Sowell’s “Basic Economics” — To understand why FDR's policies failed then, failed when LBJ extended, and will continue to fail of Obama is elected.

Flynn's “The Roosevelt Myth” — This has good information regarding how FDR ridiculed Hoover to win the presidency, then implemented many of Hoover's economic plans to save the economy. It also gives a good analysis on what motivated FDR (was he a very clever socialist who used the Depression to implement socialism, or just a bumbling incompetent who was wronged by his advisers? I think it was both and that he used his ‘brain trust’ to dilute responsibility for his socialist implementation and to make it more difficult to undo.)

DiLorenzo’s “How Capitalism Saved America”
Woods’ “Politically Incorrect Guide to American History”

And our own Freeper Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen's “A Patriot's History of the United States.” (especially chapters 15 and 16).

No, I did not use bluster, but I did use personal attacks. I'm human and give in to the pleasure of an ad hominem now and then. But I only did so after you posted a poor graphic with no references and no explanation, all as part of what I saw as a smack-down of an educated perspective of economics from conservative principles, which I didn't think would need to be rigorously defended on a conservative forum. If anything, I expect interested Freepers to ask for suggested sources. I considered your response an insult to all the time and energy I've put in to studying these and several other issues, which some would call borderline obsessive.

[Petronski]

DiLorenzo....LOL

[kellynla]

BUMP & BOOKMARK

[kellynla]

"...the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

[Tribune7]

Milton Friedman wrote about this years ago.

[AmericaUnite]

Here’s a link to with an entire lesson on the Depression and how government made it worse by The Mackinac Center. Here’s the pdf of the entire 16 page article Great Myths of the Great Depression.

http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf

[dalereed]

This goofball has been brain dead for the last 71 years!

I was taught this from the time I could sit up in a high chair.

[AmericanVictory]

Although not as clear as one would like it is clear which candidate would be worse in this regard.

[dalereed]

“The Depression continued into the 1950’s BECAUSE Depression- and WWII-era government regulations were still in place”

You must not have been an adult, My parents did very well durring the late 30s, 40s, and I did well myself in the 40s and 50s.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

No, I wasn’t. But I wasn’t an adult during the American Revolution, either, and I know what that war was about.

Because there is a Depression doesn’t mean that EVERYONE is hurt. Not everyone died from the Bubonic Plague, either. Some actually profited quite well during the Depression.

Nonetheless...