FDR and his policies prolonged the Great Depression by 7 years

Ahh so you are going by GDP. You are honestly making the claim that a figure heavily influenced by government spending rose during the largest war the world has ever seen? Holy (*)(*)(*)(*) what a revelation! GDP increasing != Economy recovering.

I asked a question, you answered that you do not. Lets leave it at that shall we.

 

Why wouldn't it? You are the one who was just arguing the SU, where all GDP was government spending, was an economic super power.

Just because you ask a question does not oblige me to look up data for you.

We can leave it at that.

 

A positive percent increase means that GDP was not declining, but expanding. I never claimed "continual" decline under FDR. But you said the economy stopped declining under FDR, which is false. Your data says otherwise.

What about 1938? -3.4%. That constitutes continuing growth in your view, right?

Wrong term. The "economy" didn't grow, GDP was growing. Other sectors of the economy were growing at different rates than GDP, so to say the "economy" was growing at the same rate as the GDP is incorrect.

You said the economy didn't decline under FDR. Your own data proves you wrong.

It pales in comparison to your pro-elitist agenda.

 

What was the Govt portion of GDP from 1932 to 1980?

I've asked a question. I have a perfect right to as you for this data.

Prove your not a total hypocrite with double standards and produce it.

 

They were considered one by the world...it doesn't mean their economy was healthy. The assumption that being an economic super power means your economy is strong or healthy is quite silly.

 

So your position now is the GD did not end AFTER the end of WWII?

Are you admitting you are just wrong when you said it ended in the early 40s before?

Weren't you the one bragging about how it's the liberals who are always wrong?

 

So they were an economic super power with a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty economy.

How silly of me.

But when you call the SU an economic superpower, all their GDP is Govt expenditures, right? So what if a portion of the US GDP is government expenditures?

 

Trillions of dollars in bailouts from Bush and Obama have not done anything for the economy. They will only succeed in inflation down the road.

FDR's policies prolonged the Great Depression, not corrected it.

So you believe Reaganomics worked?

 

My apologies.

When you wrote, "It did" I mistakenly assumed you meant it did.

No, I said the economy turned around and started growing when FDR took office. Which it did.

No, the little "-" sign means the economy contracted.

Huh? Now you are criticizing me for using GDP as a measure the economy? Let's look at your post from just a pages ago in this very thread:

So it's only OK to use GDP as a measure of the economy when you do it, is that your position?

Jeez how disingenuous can you be?

Where did I say that? Restoring to fabrication again, are we?

 

The New Deal prolonged the GD by subduing the free market. The free market always wins out the end because it is a natural force. Absent of government/FED intervention, the free market would have naturally corrected things much more quickly and less painfully.There was certainly change under FDR, but to attribute it to him and the New Deal is a logical fallacy.

Already have countless times in this thread.

Wiki also says the Great Depression lasted until the late 1930s/early 1940s.

Agreed. But to say that the economy is growing just becuase GDP is growing is incorrect.

No it doesn't. Sorry. Those figures would have been even better if Keynesian economics hadn't been applied and if the free market was allowed to take the reigns.

 

Baseless, unsupported assertion proved wrong by the data.

Year - % chng GDP
1930 -8.6%
1931 -6.5%
1932 -13.1%
1933 -1.3% <- FDR takes office
1934 +10.9%
1935 +8.9%
1936 +13.1%
1937 +5.1%
1938 -3.4%
1939 +8.1%
1940 +8.8%

LOL.

It's only fair to use GDP as a measure of the economy when you do it, right?

The fact that the economy turned around just when FDR took office and applied the New Deal is just a massive coincidence right?

Prove it.

Just like it was a massive coincidence that the economy turned around just after the Govt intervention and stimulus in the current economy.

Austrians live in a world of massive freakish coincidences.

 

Oh, I've got the solution then to all of our economic problems. Let's just go to war!

With the consequence of a huge recession and rampant inflation that devalued the dollar.

 

I believe that negative GDP leads to job losses and positive GDP leads to job gains. Any questions?

 

Again, Iriemon, you are very wrong.

We know for a fact the GD did not end before the start of WW 2.

However, it did end in the early 40s (1943) or as late as 1946.

There is still much debate on this issue by many noted economists.

The important point is FDRs policies delayed the end of the GD by at least seven years. This is now an established fact.

It is as simple as that!

Please check this out.

 

Apparently so. But we could achieve the same kind of stimulus without actually going to war.

What huge recession and rampant inflation?

 

First you said early 1940s. Then you said after WWII.

So did it end after the end of WWII or before the end of WWII?

Or are you just flip flopping in the breeze?

Conservatives' argument changes like the weather.

I checked it out last time you posted it in this thread.

In fact, I even asked you a question. Please check this out:

But you just ignored it.

And here was another question I asked you which you ignored. Please check this out:

http://www.politicalforum.com/3999408-post91.html

According to your view on protocol, I have a perfect right to ask you for these data.

But apparently it is not the liberals but the conservatives in this group will never provide these figures because they know these data will blow their conclusions out of the water.

Many people will always delay and obfuscate when pressed with a statement or a conclusion they cannot defend, right?

 

Good point, Phoebe.

However, it depends to a very large extent if job growth is in the public or private sector.

Obama has admitted none of the stimulus money went to "shovel ready" projects. Shovel ready projects put many people back to work. Most of the stimulus money went to bail the big banks, the auto makers and grow the size of the federal government.

The bank bailouts and expanding the size and power of the federal government were both big mistakes.

A policy of increasing employment in the public sector produces an endless spiral which then leads to a significant increase in our national unemployment rate.

Also, what most people don't realize is, for every Government job that is "created" the private sector must create at least NINE jobs to pay for it.

Here is how the math works.

Taxes from each private sector worker go to pay at most 11% of the Government worker's salary and benefits. Therefore, it will take NINE private sector workers (100% divided by 11%) to pay for the salary and benefits of each NEW government worker.

The solution to this problem is obvious; we need to employ as few government workers as is economically and reasonably possible.

 

Gosh, Iriemon!

I have always been told imitation is the best form of flattery!

You must have been very impressed with my statements or you would not have chosen to repeat them and to use them!

 

That's funny. The economy did continue to decline under FDR. 1938 was a decline. It did not, however, continually decline. There is a difference in meaning between the two.

Example: The economy continued to decline under FDR after the interruption that was economic growth from 1934-37.

Example: The economy did not continually decline under FDR, it only declined for a brief period in the late 1930s.

Sorry, I guess I should avoid being very specific with my choice of words for someone who lacks proper understanding of the English language, "mon".

As has been proven to you countless times, and even by your own data, this is false. The economy continued to decline after FDR took office.

Good, you're learning. Since it was in 1938, that means the economy continued its decline after FDR took office.

We've already established that the economy turned around under FDR. GDP is only one aspect of the economy. There is nothing wrong to use it as one measure of the econonmy, but you can't use it as if it is the ultimate indicator of the state of the economy.

 

Thanks for explaining how it works.

Let's see how the math works.

So with 140 million American workers, there could only by 15.6 million government workers, because that would be 9 private sector workers for each government worker.

But there are 22.1 million government workers!

So much for how it works!

Weren't you the one bragging about how liberals are wrong all the time?

 

Thanks! And I notice you could not respond to them!

 

Please provide evidence that the increase in GDP was attributed to government spending.

Yawn. I get bored of strawmans, especially when they're just fabrications. You didn't address my point. Do you agree that GDP is not the ultimate indicator of the state of the economy, but only one component?

See the OP please.

You're just making stuff up now. Please provide evidence that the Bush and Obama stimuluses turned the economy around and please provide evidence that they were not the natual result of the free market attempting to correct itself.

You're the one who believes that the entire economic crash of 08 was just a huge coincidence and had nothing to do with Federal Reserve policy. Who's the one living in a world of massive freakish coincidences?

 

Gosh, that is hysterical. You are still claiming the economy continued to declined when in fact it grew for 4 years in a row!

Can't say I'm surprised!

LOL! "after the interruption of growth"

So, now you are admitting it did not continue to decline. You may be disingenuous, but you are inconsistent.

Sure. Look at the proof. Everyone can see how the economy continued to decline. How fair and honest of you.

1933 -1.3% <- FDR took office.
1934 +10.9%
1935 +8.9%
1936 +13.1%
1937 +5.1%

You may be inconsistent, but at least you are dishonest.

You may be dishonest, but at least your are disingenuous.

Right. Only when you do it.

You may be disingenuous, but at least you apply double standards.

Cut and run from your fabrication, eh?

You may use double standards, but at least you fabricate what others say.

 

The New Deal and Obama's stimulus were designed to keep the country in a coma and Americans dependent on government.

And they worked!

 

Hmm let me guess? Creating more money out of debt?

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
% GDP change 1944-1947: -11.94%

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
Prices rose 27% from 1944-1950