Buddy, I don't know what to say...

Ryan, I can't help it that you haven't heard of or have any prior knowledge of the evidence that I am throwing out here... but the facts are the facts. Unemployment figures taken from the Fed figures and agencies concerning the decade of the '30s do not show workfare employees or farmers as EMPLOYED. That means that unless I see YOUR figures and source material with the notation that they are adjusted to show these 9 to 12 million people as EMPLOYED rather than UNEMPLOYED, I'm never going to accept that the traditional figures of 19% in 1938 is an accurate count of the number of people without income or means of support.

You claim that your position and opinion is supported by the manner and means that Reagan used to bring the national economy out of the Carter Recession, and that Ron's "conservative" method of lower taxes and deficit spending was what got the job done. I tell you that I agree, and that Reagan's method was the Keynesian ideal that FDR almost followed... the exception being he didn't lower the Federal tax rate. Thus, if you accept that FDR was a Keynesian at heart, AND that Reagan did things right, then Keynesian method is the best method to kick-start a sagging economy. Reagan's economic plans were Keynesian through and through.

Furthermore, by claiming that FDR's New Deal program's "progressive nature" negate the benefits that they brought to the economy don't stand up when I can point to the far-more traditional "conservative" action plan of letting the things work themselves out in the free-market system employed by Hoover for 36 months of continuous economy free-fall, in every single index I can think to look at. Unemployment, GDP, personal income, manufacturing, business closings, bank failures, interest rates, foreclosures... every single one started their fall in 1929 and kept falling until 1933 when the New Deal went into effect in March. Four years later, every single index had recovered completely or shown significant gains to at least 1929 levels. This is FACT... March of 1933 to Sept of 1937, a total of 42 months of continuous, vigorous growth (8.5% man... are you telling me THAT isn't solid???) that we DID NOT SEE IN 41 months of "conservative" economic administration under Hoover.

WHERE IS THE CONFUSION HERE??? 41 months of conservative leadership got us a continuous spiral into ever deepening disaster and despair, to the point that the President of the United States felt the need to station armed troops behind loaded weapons in government buildings. Beginning in March of '33, we have 42 months of continuous GROWTH and recovery at a rate not seen before or since... 8.5% annually.

You must have missed my point completely about the '37 recession, as well. I know you are chomping at the bit to shout "If it was working after 42 months, why didn't it work in the next 13?" I'm right, aren't I? As I said previously, I do not think it is a stretch to imagine that the vast majority of Americans were still a bit hesitant about how much personal capital they were willing to use as "disposable income", given the scope and breadth of the nightmare they had so recently lived through. So, when the word came that the government was ending certain programs (especially farm and agricultural assistance programs like the AAA), who wouldn't expect there to be a real possibility for an "economic contraction" which, unless I am way off base, is part and parcel to any recovery formula... New Deal or not. Reagan had a contraction during his term and during his recovery period, and so did Clinton and Bush. Google away and see that I am right. Their contractions didn't last for 13 months, I admit... but they weren't recovering from the Great Depression, either, were they?

What else can I say? I mean, what am I supposed to say when you write things like this: "If the unemplotment rate was 5% before the crash, when they didn't count farmers, and 15% right after the crash, when they didn't count farmers, then it still rose by 10%. See what I'm saying?" I mean, is this a typo?

Darby discovered (and convinced me) that farmers prior to 1929 were not listed as unemployed. After 1929, when 670,000 of their Federal loans had gone default and they were accepting assistance while still living and working on the farms, then they were "unemployed". If you were unemployed in 1933, but then worked the next 12 years continuously to help build the TVA, or Boulder Dam, or the Golden Gate Bridge... you were still UNEMPLOYED because you were working for a Federal relief program and not in your previously listed area of employment. Your dismissal of this FACT because you relate it to someone cutting an old woman's lawn for a hundred bucks is asinine... what are you thinking? I had a great uncle that worked for the CCC for more than three years, living in shacks and tents all over the northern states, sun, snow, rain or cold... that's where they were because there was no where else to work. My uncle was still UNEMPLOYED for those three years, though, according to YOUR unemployment numbers. Is that a fair assessment of who is actually unemployed in your eyes? Honestly? He's working damn hard, earning a wage and pumping that wage back into the economy through taxes and cost of living expenses, but he's still unemployed because his wages are coming from a Federal works program? Shouldn't that mean that each and every government employee was (and still is) ALSO unemployed... to this very day?

I'm sorry, Ryan... I'm still not convinced or even swayed by anything you have shown me.