Stunning!

I'll get to what I found stunning in just a moment. First, I want to address something before it becomes "Bund fact" or something to that effect. You wrote:

I would make my own assertion, though, that while the "hands off" policies of Harding did nothing to prolong the problem, they also did nothing to prevent the problem from happening again. In fact, I think a good case can be made that, in the government's attempt to regain revenue lost in the tax cuts of 1920-1921, their implementation of tariff legislation not only did nothing to fix short-term problems but directly contributed to the disaster that was waiting in 1929.

First off, the wealth of our nation is not a finite pie in terms of raising tax revenue. You can lower taxes and raise revenue to the Treasury, as did Reagan, so tariffs or any other form of taxation should not be seen as "recovering lost revenue" due to tax cuts. It's a fundamental misperception on how our economy works. Now, Perhaps I'm wrong but the tariff I assume you're talking about is Smoot-Hawely. And yes it did directly contribute the woes of the Great Depression (hence forth summarized as "GD"), but it was signed into law the summer of 1930. It didn't contribute to the coming 29' crash. Hoover was attempting, misguidedly so, to stave off unemployment, post crash, by "protecting" American jobs. It made things worse, much much worse. This is why I find folly in the argument, "we tried laizze faire as a response to the GD, it didn't work." We did not. Hoover implemented public works (Hoover Dam) and higher taxes (the tariff for starters) as a response. FDR then came in and amped such efforts up to unprecedented levels. In other words Hoover's response was "FDR light." Tariffs and public works certainly aren't my definition of "hands off" nor "conservatism."

Now, to what I found stunning in your response ...

I have always contended that business was cyclical. Natural highs and lows (although I was unaware of the specific time table in your chart, but since its' acceptance it has only served to bolster my case, in my opinion). I contend that in times of economic crisis the fundamentals of lower taxes, less regulation, less spending (on behalf of govt) is the clear path out. And as such, New Deal, in its various incarnations not only did not solve the problems of the GD, but deepened them (by the way, you basically agree that this is the formulae for a path out but in this one instance of New Deal contend the opposite worked & I still don't know how you reconcile holding those 2 opinions simultaneously, but I digress ...).

We then go on to disagree about the numbers of the 1930's; what they portend; what the Roosevelt Recession revealed; the Constitutionality of various programs; the wisdom or lack thereof of SSI, and so on. And all that's fine. Reasonable people can disagree about such a mammoth time on our nation's history. But then you routinely assert something, and in such an impassioned tone, that I have taken it to represent the back bone of your argument, in that its' what you always go back to as your trump card (as you see it). And it is this: New Deal clearly worked because we haven't had a depression since, (later adding) after suffering them every decade since our founding."

So finally I said, ok, how? Chronological correlation does NOT denote causation I said. So I asked, what was it about New Deal that staved off all future depressions through to this this very moment in time. What about it stopped cold a ten year cycle of the previous 150+? Now bare in mind, this has become your proverbial "Ace in the hole" argument, as I have taken its' meaning. Yet here was your answer: "something." So as not to take it out of context let me display the statement in its' entirety:

"To argue that there is no difference between the economic climate before 1929 and that which came after is simply wrong. If you do even a little hunting, you can find that we suffered a depressed economy (rather than simply a recessed economy) at least once every 10 years since 1797... but haven't had even ONE since 1933 (the end of the '29 depression). Recessions yes, depressions no. Something in our regulation and control of market factors changed between 1928 and 1934 that has allowed the markets to continue to cycle, but without the extremes of scale ..."

Now I read on, expecting to find what that "something" was. But I instead was stunned by this:

"I do not even claim that it was "New Deal" that brought this change... only that it happened somewhere inside of the historical period marked by the Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt ... "

"As already stated, I can't point to any ONE item on the list of New Deal programs or policies that fixed the "depression-boom" cycle (I'm using very general terms here... I don't contend that the cycle was ever broken, you understand). I am simply saying that something at a regulation-level has allowed our economy to continue to grow at a steady, even pace over the last 75 years without ever falling into a "depression" (again, in the technical sense of the term), and with recessions only lasting, on average, less than 24 months (until the current one, that is). Very little of the New Deal survived the end of WWII... as you pointed out... but NOT because they were overturned by the SCOTUS or later administrations. They were intended to be temporary measures, with limited scope and duration, as part of the three-step New Deal promise of "relief, recovery and reform."

You even seemingly suggested that perhaps the GOP was responsible for this "something." Well hells bells Titus, this isn't what you've been arguing. You didn't differentiate that "something" happened during the tenure of Roosevelt that forever changed our nation's 10 year depression cycle. You stated quite clearly in the most unambiguous terms, "New Deal worked because we haven't suffered a depression since." Not that "SOMETHING HAPPENED." For the love of Pete, how would that argument go over were I to champion the Reagan era? Many people have tried to convince me that Gorbachev was the saviour, that it was he that freed the peoples of the USSR and brought down the Soviet Empire. Would a competent response to this revisionist tripe about the old line commie be, "Reagan won it." My adversary asks, "how?" I say, "well, something happened during the 80's, so Reagan policy must have been responsible." WHAT??? Until this post of yours your posit wasn't that there existed a chronological coincidence, but rather a founding tenant, a leg in the stool you sat upon to champion New Deal was that it was New Deal itself that staved off future depressions, and thus it must have worked. How many thousands of times have you said as much? Now it's "something?" And perhaps not even FDR nor New Deal, now it's "something?"

May I posit something? You have no freaking idea why we haven't suffered a depression since, at least not at the time of your post, otherwise you would have stated such.

And look, I'm not knocking you for not knowing every intricacy of the world's most dynamic economy and the reasons we have not suffered a depression since WWII. If I had to reason such an answer off the top of my head I would assert that the globalization of the world's economies, the melding as it were, has had much to do with it. The "Mutually Assured Economic Destruction" as posited post WWII so as to prevent the world's armies from going to war has connected us in such a way that preventing any of the world's major economies from going into free fall has become defacto policy for 1st world nations (see the Greece bailout, for example).

To be honest I was set to counter your idea that New Deal was responsible for preventing future depressions by noting that most of New Deal didn't survive WWII, that they were temporary (most of them) programs in nature, so, "how could temporary programs protect the nation for 70 years?" was to be my point. Then I read your post and not only did you state such yourself, you flat out reverse your claim, and pre-concede that neither New Deal nor FDR may be responsible for staving off pre 1929 cycles of actual depressions these last 70 years. Like I said, I find this stunning since you have routinely used such a claim as one of the premier legs of defense in the New Deal stool.

Again, I interpret the Roosevelt Recession differently then you. FDR wasn't in a time of war, meaning a "healthy" economy should have not gone into spasms at the idea of a balanced budget. In fact a balanced federal budget typically has the opposite effect. The exception I would note is times of war - which is exactly how Reagan saw the US during his tenure. You are just flat wrong when you say he did not publicly advocate a balanced budget. He was supremely behind this (in fact if I remember correctly a balanced budget amendment originated with his "revolution"). His exception was times of war, such as the Cold War, which was as real as any in his view. In times of peace a balanced federal budget should not just be palatable to the private market, but welcomed.

LET ME SUMMARIZE: my interpretation of the 37'-38' recession is simply this - once FDR put the economy on government life support there was no clear path off without sending the economy into shock, which is why you don't do it in the first place. If New Deal was meant to be temporary (& work), then 7 years (roughly) after its original stages of implementation it should have been able to be withdrawn without the economy going into heroine withdrawals. Enter WWII as the sober tank in terms of dramatically reshaping the US economy. You can point to marked improvements throughout his tenure, but we can also cut a $1 million dollar check to each of the families living below the poverty line, and "solve" poverty too. The point is government propped economies, be they work programs etc, are all temporary, & their relief artificial, even to the point of prohibiting private (read: real) recovery. And simply left in place the end game is Greece.Thus govt interventionism in the name of "saving" the private market is doomed to failure long term. Whether we agree on the effects of New Deal specifically during the 30's or not I hope we can agree that New Deal oriented policy is NOT an effective long term solution to economic crisis. You also noted as #1 on your list, of what separated the GD and made it "great", was unemployment. Well, between my afore stated interpretation on the 37-38' recession; the fact that New Deal did not effectively tame or stabilize unemployment throughout FDR's pre WWII tenure; because the economic truism that New Deal style policy is not an effective long term strategy (& clearly had he lived, he would have gone into New Deal II, see that SoTU); and due to the fact that you have openly admitted New Deal did not stave off future depressions (only that "something" did), I find the term failure to describe FDR's domestic efforts a very apt term.

On the ideology ...

It is clear to me that FDR didn't just "smack" of socialism, he was a socialist. That SoTU address clearly states governments role in securing the means of production, for what other mechanism is there for "guaranteeing as a RIGHT" a descent home, a "useful and renumartive job", clothes, food, etc etc. I wasn't claiming that FDR was "anti-American", I'm claiming that he was saw the Constitution of the United States as fundamentally flawed document. I mean, did you not read that SoTU? I truly believe that he saw this second bill of rights as the true expression of quintessential Americanism. I'm saying that be it Ray, F. Glenn or me (& believe me, I'm not equating myself to them), that we don't recognize that as "American" in principle (& I doubt you do either). His vision was contrary to the American dream as constituted, not that he "hated" America, not that his heart was "anti" American," but rather what he layed out as his vision of America is contrary (I 9;d argue the exact opposite) of what the nation stood for as founded. That he was more than willing to sacrifice economic liberty for economic "security", and that is antithetical to the American ideal, as I see it.

But you didn't answer one question. You're right that socialism, communism and fascism were sweeping the world as a reaction to the global depression. I noted to James that soon after FDR's death we hurried to pass the XXII Amendment. Read that SoTU Address from 1944 again. Think of the power to get reelected before the war FDR possessed, and how amplified it would have been coming out on the other side as the successful CIC of WWII. If FDR lives well past the war, is it possible we may have lost the Republic? Easy to scoff and say "no" all these decades removed. But I urge you, really consider the power the man wielded, how unstoppable he would have been after winning the war in both theaters. And try to fully appreciate just how radical that 44' state of the union address was. Then ask yourself that question I did in my last - was FDR the closest we ever came to seeing a despot, had he lived?