Without government, the federal reserve, there wouldn't be a depression. And what got us out of it was the war, which i admit could be argued as government help.
Without government, the federal reserve, there wouldn't be a depression. And what got us out of it was the war, which i admit could be argued as government help.
Without government, the federal reserve, there wouldn't be a depression. And what got us out of it was the war, which i admit could be argued as government help.
It was ~15%, 10 percent lower than what it was at the height of depression.
But before we get into this inevitable debate that whether or not 15% constitutes as getting out of depression nobody can deny how vital new deal programs were for US in 1930s. Rural electrification, creation of FPC and PWA and expansion of hydroelectric power in many places in America, NYA and CCC providing much needed relief to unemployed Americans and especially youth who otherwise would've starved to death were much better approaches than laissez faire way of Herbert Hoover which was the flavor of the day.
The same hoover who signed the tariff bill which made matters worse? Funny youd mention him since fdr s best move was reversing that. 15% unemployment means the new deal did not solve the problem.
Tariff bill came way too late. Hoover was clueless. He otherwise did nothing. In the height of depression Congress did not have a session for 7 months.
15% meant that New Deal alleviated the problem. Saving millions of people from starvation is a good use for tax dollars, which was the primary point of this discussion.
Tariff bill came way too late. Hoover was clueless. He otherwise did nothing. In the height of depression Congress did not have a session for 7 months.
15% meant that New Deal alleviated the problem. Saving millions of people from starvation is a good use for tax dollars, which was the primary point of this discussion.
Without government, the federal reserve, there wouldn't be a depression. And what got us out of it was the war, which i admit could be argued as government help.
Not the only time as well. It's pretty much always the wars that funds the US pockets. Most of the time it's wars that are being led in other countries.
This article begins in a way that you think it is going to discredit the New Deal. But it's mostly referring to one single government action that went awry, and it happened under Herbert Hoover. Hoover actually threatened to veto the same bill in 1929. So it became a desperate measure later when the crash had already happened. Sowell does not really talk about new deal except citing a 2004 study that he doesn't elaborate further. Anyway, my point was about new deal's much needed relief to the desperately poor farmers who were destroyed by the depression.
Without government, the federal reserve, there wouldn't be a depression. And what got us out of it was the war, which i admit could be argued as government help.
Spot on, sir. Actually, a lot of the major recessions we have had were propelled by asinine decisions from government and the Fed. And hell, the war doesn’t really make people better off in the long run, see broken windows fallacy.