Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo
This is absolutely false, I'm afraid, SDW2001.
Edit: see also here, Paul Krugman explaining here how FDR's investing in America basically dug the nation's way out of the Depression:http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...here-are-any-r
OK..one...the way you have that data pasted it's impossible to see what's what. Secondly, after the New Deal kicked in, we had a recession within the depression. Hmmm. And you blame this on deficit spending being backed off. Of course, this makes no sense. Economic changes take 2-3 years to kick in due to "lag." So if anything, his reduced spending helped...according to your own numbers.
Two..Krugman is an unmitigated fool and liberal stooge
. I make no apologies for dismissing his comments out of hand.
Here is some other info for you:http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...sion-5409.aspx
Two 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.
FDR, after assuming the presidency, promoted a wide variety of federally funded programs aimed at restoring the American economy, helping relieve the suffering of the unemployed, and reforming the system so that such a severe crisis could never happen again. However, while the New Deal did help restore the GNP to its 1929 level and did introduce basic banking and welfare reforms, FDR refused to run up the deficits that ending the depression required. Only when the federal government imposed rationing, recruited 6 million defense workers (including women and African Americans), drafted 6 million soldiers, and ran massive deficits to fight World War II did the Great Depression finally end.
The Wall Street Journal
he downturn of 1937-38 was preceded by large wage hikes that pushed wages well above their NIRA levels, following the Supreme Court's 1937 decision that upheld the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act. These wage hikes led to further job loss, particularly in manufacturing. The "recession in a depression" thus was not the result of a reversal of New Deal policies, as argued by some, but rather a deepening of New Deal polices that raised wages even further above their competitive levels, and which further prevented the normal forces of supply and demand from restoring full employment.
Well, that's a point that's been made and rebutted by people who know more about this than I do. But after the money's been spent, the improved infrastructure and projects don't just disappear.
True, and they don't add anything to the economy either. The jobs go away.
China invests massively in this sort of stuff for pretty good reasons.
So? For what reasons? Are you aware that we have different economy than does China?
Also, in a mortgage crisis, say, this kind of thing keeps people liquid
How many people...the ones who got the stimulus jobs? Even by the most optimistic bullshit estimates, that's not even 10% of the unemployed.
until the mortgage sector catches up and people start lending again...
The mortgage sectors is lending. They never stopped. The kind of loans you're talking about aren't coming back anyway. And what..people are dependent on these loans?
you're not disputing that it saves jobs,
Perhaps some jobs, yes.
but to save them at the nadir of a crisis prevents things from getting much, much worse, surely?
No, I don't think it does. Employment is a result of business being transacted. That part hasn't gotten better. Paying people to dig holes only works for a while. The underlying issues don't get fixed.