Son of a BLEEP!

What is wrong with you? That was a rehash of crap we laid out previously.

First off, I'm not here, nor was I ever, to argue that Hoover had a better approach in 28.' Or that COMPLETE laissez faire is the answer. I don't know why you keep inserting that, it has no place in this discussion, I'm not required at all to demonstrate it worked better for the purposes of this long, ongoing debate. We are talking New Deal - success or failure, and I was arguing that New Deal did not deliver, that at the end of the day (or decade) it was a failure. I even, in an attempt at bipartisanship, amended that statement to a "majority failure", versus "complete failure" to allow for successes such as the TVA and FDIC. The one thing I asked you in that post, which you did not answer (go figure) was how do you define success in this case? Given the numbers I cited as late as 39', can a pro New Dealer, such as yourself, still legitimately claim it a majority success? I contend an emphatic "no."

Look, the numbers are what they are - we did our homework on the pros and cons. I say if one must be picked, between success or failure, I judge it a majority, or overall, failure. That is my opinion based on my own threshold for what defines economic "success", and I feel confident that my research legitimizes that claim as a reasonable conclusion to draw.

Now you, Titus G. Newdealer, what is your opinion on whether it should be judged a majority success or failure? Clearly there were individual improvements to point to, such as the GDP you cited, as there were individual failures, such as the unemployment I cited. The question I put to you (now twice) is which one out ways the other, in your opinion? I'll even give you a third option - do the failures nullify the successes (or vice versa) to the point of a net wash?

My opinion, to oversimplify for the purposes of brevity, is that one can not look at the figures I cited in 39' and claim that the decade of New Dealing "worked." The gains you cite were either too minimal or nullified (perhaps "overshadowed" is a more apt adjective) by other failures to render an overall description of New Deal as quote, "successful."

Now, for a third time, what is your opinion on the matter?