I've got news for you, Copernicus called . .

. . . and he says the earth does NOT revolve around you. So put away your foolish, sinful Irish pride and arrogance (now there's the pot calling the kettle black), and listen up.

I've been thinking of a way to drive this point home to you so we can resolve this dispute absent a stale mate . . . which is where it stands as of my last, in my opinion.

Lets assume that the various GDP flow charts, etc, you cited are accurate. Let us also assume my unemployment and business failure numbers etc, as of 1939 (or post New Deal implementation if you will), are also accurate. I contend that no economic recovery plan is complete (read: successful) without a pre disaster recovery in employment, business success rates, stock wipe outs, and a reasonable fear from another sharp recession in the near future, eliminated (not a guarantee mind you, that's impossible. Just a "we are out of the weeds" consensus). All of these downturns occurred between 1937-1939 specifically, but not exclusively, my point being post New Deal they were still occurring. You contend that no economic recovery plan can be judged a failure with steady, persistent improvements in GDP, and so on. So assuming we stipulate one another's numbers, how are we to define success?

Let me put it another way. Is it reasonable for one to look upon the post New Deal implementation numbers I cited and come to the conclusion that the final tally on New Deal effectiveness on the economy was insufficient to be judged "successful?" If you agree this is a reasonable conclusion (whether it is your conclusion or not) then I must stipulate that for one to look at GDP those 75 out of 84 months, and conclude it was causing improvements, is also reasonable. If so, then the improvements you describe and the failure I describe are not mutually exclusive. They can coexist . . . unless one of us is prepared to call the other a liar, numbers misrepresented and the sort.

So could we not agree that New Deal policy caused improvements along the way but in the end was insufficient to realize what we would recognize as (historically or even in contemporary terms) an economic recovery? I mean describing unemployment and the other numbers I cited as "the last vestiges of the Depression era" as you did, that WWII happen to correct is a little understated don't you think? Seriously, those numbers I cited are huge in terms of judging an economic recovery. I doubt no matter what comes of Obama's recovery plan that if unemployment is high, the stock market is volatile, and 50% of overall businesses are failing that it will be afforded the description of "successful." Do you? Obviously the advent of WWII has precluded us from finding out what the economy of the 40's would have looked like with only New Deal to impact it, but my simple contention is that no economic recovery plan, regardless of any noted, regular improvements in GDP along the way, can be labeled "successful" if unemployment in the end is still hovering around 1 in 5 Americans; a sharp recession occurs late in the decade; businesses are failing at an alarming rate; and the stock market is seen as highly volatile. Is that so unreasonable of me?

Do you see my point? You are arguing a net IMPROVEMENT each year with your numbers and citations and specific program successes, whereas I am arguing those improvements are insufficient to label the FINAL TALLY "successful." One can improve his lot from A to B, but if the goal was X (or get back to X after a disaster), he has improved, but not succeeded. I am willing to concede that New Deal's deficit spending/public works/certain alphabet soup programs were not a net loss for GDP those months you noted - meaning they were able to produce PROVABLE improvements in the economy, IF you will concede that those improvements did not amount to enough of a recovery by decades end to label the entire affair "successful." Improvements, yes. But enough to call its' over all effect on the economy "successful", no. You see what I mean? I'm making an honest attempt at clarification and perhaps closure here.

Can you live with this sort of compromised separation of terms, coexisting? An agreement that because of your cited improvements it is not accurate to label the entire thing a bust, while at the same time conceding that those improvements were not sufficient enough to label the New Deal's overall effect on the economy,"successful?"

If not then our differences on what defines "success" are irreconcilable, and we are left at a stale mate indefinitely I suppose.