Oh, my goodness...

Jeez, Ryan... put your hackles away. If you don't want to play anymore, then we won't play.

You insisted that I provide substantiated evidence that New Deal policies directly contributed to the recovery in manners and means that outweighed any possible eclipse (or over-shadowing) from policies that we all agree failed (example: NRA)... and I did so. In that presentation, I did not question your facts, figures or numbers (although I did say I had trouble finding where you got some of your facts from), only your general conclusion that the New Deal was an inherent failure from start to finish. I had even found evidence that the one un-resolved indicator of recession/depression in the entire equation (unemployment) was far less the problematic symptom of the economic era than we have BOTH been led to believe.

I have tried to show that, while we have very nearly come to blows over the question of whether or not World War II ended the "Great Depression"... I have never questioned that the ultimate solution to the economic woes of the 1930's was the massive, unprecedented spending that WWII forced the US government to follow in order to secure victory. From '42 to '45, we doubled the national debt each and every year, which helped us to win the war AND end (once and for all) the last of the economic problems remaining from the 30's. Where we differ is that, while you give that credit to the WAR itself, I give that credit to the manner in which the US government went about winning it... deficit spending WHEN NEEDED. If we spent $180 billion in 1945 to defeat Germany, Japan AND the very last vestiges of the Depression and the WORKED... why would spending $60 billion in 1935 have been the WRONG thing to do? If the country needs it... then deficit spending is either GOOD or BAD, regardless of whether or not there is a war being fought.

I have been back over what I wrote, and can't find where I "dismissed" your evidence or research... but I did refute some of it directly, which you failed to counter. How am I to take that EXCEPT as an understood concession of defeat? Yes, I did accuse you of "refusing to make your case"... and that was undoubtedly a fairly sweeping example of hyperbole on my part. For that, I apologize. We all know sarcasm doesn't translate well into the written word.

All that aside, let it go and we won't bring it up again. You refuse to see my point, and I can't find anything in what you, me or anyone else has shown to justify yours... no matter how hard I try. The evidence of improvement is there for all to see, and it begins and ends with the New Deal policies of government spending in excess of receipts in areas that support development of and improvements to national infrastructure. No one, including you, has shown me an alternative explanation that is simpler or more obvious than this one... no matter how often I ask.

So, questions regarding New Deal Success/Failure... still unresolved by Bund consensus.