Let's go point-by-point...

This doesn't have to get nasty or ugly... but let's end it now, once and for all.

You said:

"We don't name our depressions like hurricanes, the GREAT DEPRESSION refers to the era initiated by the 1929 crash and ended as a consrquence of WWII."

I don't name them at all... but many are named, and I am using the name 90% of all historians AND economists use to describe the "depression" that started on Oct 29, 1929 and ENDED in the first fiscal quarter of 1934. THAT is the DEPRESSION! You can talk about the ERA all you want, but the GREAT DEPRESSION was between these two specific time frames AND NO WHERE ELSE. It is called the "Great Depression" NOT because the ERA lasted more than a decade (in fact, the "Long Depression" lasted for 24 years... from 1873 until 1897) but because it was the single greatest loss of wealth in US history. In less than 11 weeks, 40% of ALL the wealth in the United States had evaporated completely. That means 4 out of every 10 dollars a person had in the bank or invested in the market or sunk into their homes and farms had dried up and blown away. This trend continued without interruption until the end of 1933.

The other "depression" you keep talking about is the "Roosevelt Recession" of 1937, which everything I have read (unless you have something new to show me) says was caused by CONGRESS insisting that the budget get balanced, thus forcing new and higher taxes, which choked the market and sent the economy back into 9 months of free fall.

Between these two cycles, we see that the economy has recouped ALL its losses (except in unemployment) in less than 3 years, and the economy continued to GROW an additional 12% ABOVE this mark before the "Roosevelt Recession" hits in '37. From the summer of 1938 until 1940, the economy continues to grow at a pace never seen before then in history... adding an additional 24% to its size and scope in 1938... in less than 2 years!

I have no more graphic example of this than the graph below:




Even this graph shows that the '37 recession never took us below the recovered levels of 1929! The recovery and GROWTH of the national economy is plainly visible here, and it is more pronounced than what can be seen before the '29 crash. Yes there was uncertainty and fear... who could imagine otherwise? I just can't see how you can look at this and not SEE that the depression (four or more consecutive fiscal quarters of negative growth) ENDED in 1934.

So, stop ranting about ERAS... I'm talking about DEPRESSIONS. Specifically, the GREAT DEPRESSION.

You said:

"The New Deal DID NOT end the economic hardships that define the Great Depression. By 1937, when the second depression hit, New Deal policies had been given ample time to work or not, they simply did not. The work created was temporary and had limited economic stimulus effect."

What can you possibly define as LIMITED? In 3 years, we were back to pre-crash levels, after 4 years of economic free-fall. Take in the rest of the entire decade, and you see (you can actually SEE) unprecedented economic growth with only 9 months of recession over a span of 84 months... how is that "limited economic stimulus effect"? SOMETHING was working then that wasn't working in the 50 months prior to the New Deal... so what was it? Laissez faire economics? The gold standard? Unregulated commodity market speculation? What Hoover initiative or policy that wasn't a forerunner to the New Deal (and YES, much of the New Deal was Hoover's, NOT FDR's) was working this delayed magic more than four years after the crash?

You said:

"The standard has always been did New Deal during the 30's reestablish pre 1929 levels or post WWII levels? It did not, and that's what the New Dealers promised..."

I have shown you that every economic indicator of national prosperity WAS higher by 1937 AND 1939 than it was in 1929, and the GDP figures in the graph above stand as my evidence. I can't show why the numbers didn't surpass "post WWII" numbers... but I guess that is because WWII hadn't happened yet! How in the hell was a "New Dealer" in 1933 supposed to know what the economy would look like in 1946? What an asinine thing to say... sheesh.

Anyway, you have the GDP figures to show the economy was bigger and growing faster than it was in 1929 by as early as 1936, and it had surpassed that again by 1939. Per capita income was higher every year but ONE (1937) and the DOW-Jones Industrial average grew at a rate of 9% to 17% every year but ONE (1937). The only indicator that stayed higher than it was in '29 was unemployment... the only one. No one measures an economy by how many cars are sold, how many patents are applied for, or how many businesses fail, unless those numbers are included in a broader index. Yes, there was uncertainty and many people weren't spending money the way they did prior to the crash... but the banking industry had completely revamped how credit was given, and I for one am not going to discount that as a possible cause for your "examples" of failure.

So, you can dismiss me with your "Good day sir" all you want... I have laid out my response to your posts (numerous, I know) with as clear and concise of a post as I can.

I am not discounting that for people who remained out of work throughout the 30s, nothing the New Deal did probably made much of a difference for them. Times remained hard because the WORST was so fresh in everyone's memory. But, the facts do not lie! Those that had jobs were making more per year on average, and the economy was GROWING at a pace greater than it ever had previously.

SOMETHING worked that hadn't worked before. We had a new Administration that implemented a New Deal... and until you can show me that every aspect of the New Deal failed to impact the economy in positive manner, I am going to assert through the PROOF of history that the New Deal helped America recover from the Great Depression.

Good night to you, sir.