And one more thing...

The quote is "Once more into the breach, dear friends..."

Big Billy Shakespeare and Henry V are both rolling in their respective graves right now.

How good are those WPA tools?

Ok, last stab.

If we are BOTH accepting one another's assertions as researched and provable "fact" (I also grant you that), then we are left with our subjective, individual standards as to what defines "success" or "failure."

Follow me here, and maybe we can both sleep without waking up at 4a.m., restless, ready to pounce and expand on our argument (for one night anyway). I think NOW we are getting at the heart of modern day debate over New Deal. I point to the still high unemployment (in 1939 I'm talking); the rate of business failure; etc, etc that was still persistent well after New Deal implementation (the most controversial in modern New Deal debate being deficit spending on government ran programs, not Lend Lease), and yet you are able to point to 75 out of 84 months of a rise in GDP. Ok. So what defines success?

If you are comfortable with that GDP number qualifying the New Deal a success, then fine. I can not call that "wrong", it is your opinion of what success means. As for me I can not. If I'm looking at the 1930's (to oversimplify our more complex arguments for a moment) and I see well after New Deal implementation that unemployment still hovered at 1 out of every 5 men. That 50% of all businesses were still failing; that we experienced another sharp recession (the Roosevelt recession, regardless of congressional budget demands, he signed off on it so he owns it), I can not, in my judgment, describe FDR's economic policies as a success. My threshold isn't necessarily higher, but different, then just the GDP number. And for a very specific reason. The business failure rate and unemployment was making everyday life in America a struggle, as you well know (making this current "crisis" look like the proverbial cake walk). I couldn't imagine being a husband and father, walking around in 1939, given the numbers I cited, and thinking to myself - boy New Deal rocks (I have hind sight, granted, so they wouldn't have my future to compare it to as I do, I'm just trying to illustrate a point).

So look, I don't think you want to label New Deal as a quote, "unqualified success" (you can't accept my numbers as you have and still do that); but neither can you accept my labeling the ENTIRE thing an "unqualified failure." That's reasonable, fine. But if that is reasonable, can we then at least agree on this point: given the various hardships I have cited, persisting on until WWII, is it fair to label New Deal "more failure then success?" Think about this for a minute before you answer - this depends on your honest assessment on what defines "success" for New Deal. If you can't call it an unqualified success, and I amend my statement (given your GDP numbers) to exclude the description "unqualified failure", then we are left with deciding rough percentages - was it 60/40 failure to success? 70/30? Or would you describe it the other way around? I realize judging the entire scope and breadth of something as complex and massive as the New Deal is fulderale but lets just go with what we do know and have researched about the New Deal. Given all the information both I and you have presented, I have to judge it more failure then success. I insist that those hardships persisting until WWII (most notably but not exclusively, unemployment) give me cause to legitimately make that claim.

Again, putting a solid number on it (like 70/30 etc) is probably foolish to even attempt off the top of our head, and be accurate. But I feel safe in at least asserting it was more failure then success. Is that an acceptable description to you? "More failure then success."

If not, fine. That simply means we have irreconcilable differences in what we define as "success", thus our debate moves on from New Deal, and into a proper definition for an administration's economic "success" threshold.

I await your answer . . . but ponder what I've said, if you will.

Furthermore...

Making the "requirement" for success the achievement of all the stated and understood goals of all the programs makes the debate mute. That would be exactly the same effect as my saying that because George H. W. Bush ran on a promise of "No New Taxes" (I read his lips), HIS Administration's efforts and policies were also complete failures.

The New Deal is understood to mean the policies and programs of BOTH FDR's pre-war Administrations in toto, because everything these Administrations did was geared to improve the American condition across the board. This is true of ANY Administration's goals, isn't it? We may not agree with Obama and his Cabinet, but I'm pretty confident that they are doing something they THINK will help the country (as ignorant as I know this to be, it doesn't change the facts).

So, you may not think that the repeal of the Volstead Act was "New Deal", but that doesn't change the facts. You may not think that the removal of the gold standard was New Deal, but it was. Just as much as the NRA, the WPA, the CCC, or any other "alphabet soup" program was New Deal.

Something changed in the summer of 1933, because this country saw GROWTH in the GDP for the first time in more than 4 years... growth that continued with only ONE 9-month interruption for the next 7 years. Please, stop showing me where the country was still hurting! I KNOW that times remained tough and that there was a huge degree of economic uncertainty and fear throughout the nation... but SOMETHING changed! The evidence is clear and unequivocal.

If it wasn't caused by some aspect of New Deal policies (i.e. Keynesian economics), then what was it?

This is how it ends?

You asserting your conviction without addressing my questions?

Nothing I asked needs you to quote Cabinet Members or cite numbers and figures... just tell me WHY the GDP showed such an over-all UPWARD trend (faster and higher than prior to the crash) for 75 out of 84 months during the entire "era" you so laboriously described. What propelled the economy to heights never before reached in such a short amount of time... even if some aspects of society failed to adjust or recover completely?

I have not dismissed ANYTHING you have said... not a word. All facts and figures that you have brought to this table have been taken for exactly what they are: fact. For example, I do not doubt that 50% of new businesses failed between 37 and 39... just as I know that Morgantheau abandoned FDR's policies when he saw that they were not following the Keynesian mandates of budgetary restraint when the GDP and the markets recover. I haven't denied ANY aspect of the trials and tribulations that were experienced during the 1930s, and I certainly haven't used my argument to say that the New Deal SOLVED every problem brought on by the depression. Quite the opposite, in fact.

So, my question stands: If not some aspect of the New Deal, then what? What accounts for the recovery I have clearly shown to have occurred PRIOR to the US's involvement in WWII (or even before the Lend-Lease contracts kicked in... another New Deal program that both directly contributed to HELPING the economy of the US and assisted in the defense of Great Britain)?

If SOME policy of FDR's worked, then how do we label the entire pre-war administration's efforts as a "failure"? I KNOW you agree with me on the impact that the Italian campaign had on the war effort, but we all agree that mistakes were made. Should we label FDR's war policies a failure because we NEVER fully liberated Italy before the end of the war (as the policy he supported stated we would)?

It is my contention that Keynesian theory WORKS, when applied with reasonable expectations and an understanding that debts incurred do, eventually, have to be paid back (regardless of where those debts come from... peace time or war time). FDR knew this. Ike knew this. Nixon knew this. Reagan knew this. Clinton knew this.

Why does Ryan NOT know this?

Once more unto the brink . . . dear friend!

I must demonstrate that "every aspect of the New Deal failed" before you'll believe me? That's quite a high standard. That's equivalent to my demanding you demonstrate that every aspect of it succeeded before I cease to label it a failure. Widely used and applied by academics the term: "The Great Depression" has come to represent that entire era of unprecedented economic hardships. You can cherry pick 3 years of the decade and use the economic term "depression", and claim that's the "classic" definition of "THE" Great Depression if you'd like, and you'd be right in that at one time that did represent the definition of "The Great Depression" in total. No longer however. The entire ERA is what "The Great Depression" has come to represent. The "era" is now an implied preface, thus the "era" is represented when invoking the words, "The Great Depression" in modern speak and has become a used, known, and cited term by historians to refer to that entire decade of economic hardship. A hardship the New Deal did not correct (even your much admired History Channel asserts this). The bottom line is that era was not "fixed" by the New Deal; the woes, both deep and stinging, went on well after New Deal was implemented. My posts have demonstrated that, and Roosevelt's own Treasury Secretary admitted it during congressional testimony. It is irrefutable.

I'm not arguing your chart or recitation of the 31 - 34 numbers, I'm addressing that era, via the term accepted to describe and represent it: THE GREAT DEPRESSION. And not based on the single aspect like car sales - AGAIN A BLATANT OVER SIMPLIFICATION OF A MUCH BROADER ARGUMENT (SHEESH!!!!) - but the over all loss in countless numbers, sectors and statistics I've repeatedly cited that emerged and reemerged even after the New Deal was implemented, including 50% 0f all businesses failing (between 37 and 39), combined with still staggering unemployment (the largest dagger in the legacy of New Deal). Given these, also irrefutable assertions, one can rather easily and clearly demonstrate that the era of economic hardships known and referred to by historians as THE GREAT DEPRESSION (you can even qualify it by the preface "the era of" if you like) was NOT solved by the New Deal, YET that was New Deal's purpose, its claim, its promise, its charter, its mandate - to end the nation's economic woes. It did not deliver. It failed in that attempt. Understand that truth - IT FAILED. And unfortunately for 50 million people, it took WWII before we would see its end.

FDR was fantastic as a war time CIC, but miserable as an economic steward. That is my contention backed up with facts, numbers, testimony and analysis. But as nothing I can say will convince you, no matter how specifically I define the failures and the inability of New Deal to solve the economic woes plaguing that decade, I will resign myself to the hope that those onlookers stumbling across our site will find some value in our gentlemanly disagreement.

And realize of course ... that I am right.

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.

My eye balls are officially shooting blood now ...

Look, HOW MANY TIMES must I distinguish between a discussion on the "era" known as the Great Depression and the individual depressions that occurred? They are different you know? 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. You continually, and quite cleverly, try to discuss the individual depression's ending (and restaring) in the 1930's as if that means the Great Depression was ended before WWII. This is not the case.

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. The government forays into the private sector instead of providing stimulating effects acted to retard hiring; the Dow continued to take hits; the tax rates and tariffs were stifling; and we are still stuck with Social Security. Do you know where and when the term "boondoggle" initiated? It's a phrase still used to describe bloated, wasteful government spending. That phrase emerged in the 1930's - I'm sure that's a coincidence. And by Jambo's own admission only about 10 to 15% of major New Deal policy survived the Supreme Court rulings as unConstitutional - ON THAT ALONE how can you claim "The New Deal" helped the economy or ended the Great Depression, when the majority of it was struck down and ceased to be implemented? That's madness. And what did remain, by FDR's own administration's admission, DID NOT WORK. New dealer and Treasury Secretary Henry Morgentheau noted in congressional testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee in 1939, referring to FDR's economic policies:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest and if I am wrong ... someone else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after 8 years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And enormous debt to boot."


This gentleman was intimately familiar with Wall Street, 1930's economics, and was a New Dealer himself! He was not just a Treasury Secretary, but an author of New Deal, one FDR's closest friends and the man you had to go through to get a hearing on any new economic policy for 10 years!

But there's more ... you keep complaining that all anti-New Dealers lay claim to is unemployment, and given you clearly haven't read in full my lengthy posts on other failing aspects I'll try and present more succinct, clear evidence here according to some research I've done. Lets for a moment focus on the later years of the 30's, so as to allow ample time for New Deal attempts at fixing the economy to have a fair "economic hearing." According to the Historical Statistics of The United States, compiled by the US Census Bureau (that hot bed of conservative, revisionist activism) the stock market which initially rallied somewhat had a collapse in the late 30's (again, after full New Deal implementation). The value of all stocks dropped in half from 1937 to 1939. Car sales plummeted 1/3 in those same years and were lower by 1939 then in any of the last 7 years of the 1920's. Business failures jumped 50% from 1937 to 1939. Patent applications were lower in 1939 then in any year in the entire decade of the 1920's. Real estate foreclosures, which did decrease steadily in the 1930's were still higher in 1939 then in any year during the decade and a half following WWII. Not to mention the national debt, which Secretary Morgentheau referenced, grew more from 1932 to 1939 then in the previous 150 years of US history, combined. The spending for 7 wars and 5 recessions from 1776 to 1931 was less then FDR's first 2 terms. And yes, unemployment in 1939 still hovered around 20%.

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, ADDING that their measures would not only restore economic prosperity, but prevent future collapses. They failed on all counts. I'm not saying that no relief was ever felt by individuals employed by the WPA, etc. What I am saying is that the New Deal was intended, nay PROMISED, to end the GREAT DEPRESSION, and it did not, arguably prolonging it when it came to taxes, tariffs and ill fated government forays into the private sector.

I didn't make up these statistics, I'm not forging or forcing words out of Morgentheau's mouth during congressional testimony. These are the facts. The reality is New Deal equals economic failure, period.

Of course, 3 weeks from now Titrus will recall this post and quip that my writings of 2/17 consisted of nothing more then me exclaiming the words, "liberal tripe", and reciting the word "unemployment" 200 times, then he'll undoubtedly urge I link to it if I want to prove him wrong.

When it comes to New Deal, the record is clear ... and I'm quite done repeating myself only to have it boiled down and misrepresented as a catch phrase or one word.

Good day to you sir.