The Instigator
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
wierdman
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,730 times Debate No: 34913
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

1Historygenius

Pro

Debate

In this debate, I am arguing that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. My opponent must argue that the New Deal increased the recovery of the Great Depression.

Rules

Round 1 is for acceptance. No trolling or semantics.
wierdman

Con

I accept your challenge and await your response.
Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Pro

My Case

Prices

During the New Deal, President Franklin Roosevelt passed the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1933. Both laws kept prices high due the limit of competition and ended excess production. According to Mr. Edwards:

"The centerpiece of the New Deal was the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. It created “codes” or cartels in more than 500 industries in order to limit competition. Businesses were told to cut output and maintain high prices and wages. Businessmen who cut prices were cajoled, fined, and sometimes arrested. Fortunately, NIRA was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1935.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 similarly restricted production to keep prices high. “Excess” output was destroyed or dumped abroad. While millions of Americans were going hungry, the government plowed under 10 million acres of crops, slaughtered 6 million pigs, and left fruit to rot. Production of milk, fruits, and other products was cartelized to boost prices under “marketing orders” begun in 1937." [1]

Mr. Higgs argues:

"The objective was to raise farm commodity prices until they reached a much higher "parity" level. The millions who could hardly feed and clothe their families can be forgiven for questioning the nobility of a program designed to make food and fiber more expensive. Though this was called an "emergency" measure, no President since has seen fit to declare the emergency over." [2]

High Wages

During the Great Depression, FDR rose the minimum wage which had very difficult effects on the economy. This specifically hurt minorities. According to Mr. Higgs

"Minimum-wage laws proved a stumbling block to efforts by blacks to secure jobs. These laws prevented employers from undercutting unions by offering lower wages to nonunion members. Since blacks faced exclusion from many of the powerful unions, they were in effect frozen out." [2]
When the NIRA was passed under FDR, wages were forced to dramatically increase, production did not improve at all. Higher wages restricted output and reduced productive capacity. As Mr. Cole and Mr. Ohanian note:

"We have calculated that manufacturing wages were as much as 25% above the level that would have prevailed without the New Deal. And while the artificially high wages created by the NIRA benefited the few that were fortunate to have a job in those industries, they significantly depressed production and employment, as the growth in wage costs far exceeded productivity growth." [3]

In their study:

"Our results suggest that New Deal policies are an important contributing factor tothe persistence of the Great Depression. The key depressing element behind these policies firms to collude with paying high wages. Our model indicates that these policies reduced consumption, and investment about 14 percent relative to their competitive balanced growth path levels. Thus, the model accounts for about half of the continuation of the Great Depression between 1934 and 1939." [4]

Unemployment

For all of the 1930s, there was high double-digit unemployment. Instead of a recovery we get another economic downturn in 1938. We should be seeing a stronger gains, but this does not happen because of FDR's policies. Instead, unemployment with nonfarm workers stays way over 20% until the "war economy" brings people back to work. These are not the signs of a healthy recovery at all. The graph shows that. Sadly, I am unable to post images due to a Debate.org glitch. The graph will be in the sources section for people to see. [6]

Devaluation of the Dollar

FDR took the nation off the gold standard in 1933, but this was a mistake. Mr. Higgs notes that:

"Besides being theft, gold confiscation didn't work. The price of gold was increased from $20.67 to $35.00 per ounce, a 69% increase, but the domestic price level increased only 7% between 1933 and 1934, and over rest of the decade it hardly increased at all. FDR's devaluation provoked retaliation by other countries, further strangling international trade and throwing the world's economies further into depression." [2]

Mr. Cain and Mr. Lowrie note that:

"The United States went off the gold in 1933, and that year came in as badly as the Depression's trough year of 1932 in all the major economic catergories. In 1934, the United States resumed the gold standard (if at a higher price), and the recovery got going. It was a mediocre recovery, in that going off gold and the dollar devaluation against gold had introduced a lack of clarity in the system." [5]

According to the graph here, we see massive devaluation. [7]

High Taxes

Mr. Edwards shows that:

"After his election in 1932, Roosevelt imposed further individual and corporate tax increases. The highest individual rate was increased to 79 percent. State and local governments also increased taxes during the 1930s, with many imposing individual income taxes for the first time. All these tax increases killed incentives for work, investment, and entrepreneurship at a time when they were sorely needed." [1]

To prove this, look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average in my graph. You will see -50.3 in growth. [8]


Sources

1.
Edwards, Chris. "The Government and the Great Depression." Cato.org. Cato Institute, 1 Sept. 2005. Web.
2.
Higgs, Robert. "How FDR Made the Depression Worse." Mises.org. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, Feb. 1995. Web.
3. Cole, Harold L., and Lee E. Ohanian. "How Government Prolonged the Depression." Online.WSJ.com. The Wall Street Journal, 2 Feb. 2009.Web.
4.
Cole, Harold L., and Lee E. Ohanian. "New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis." Econ.Yale.Edu. Yale Department of Economics, May 2001. Web.
5. Cain, Herman and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9 An Army of Davids. 2012.
6. http://www.debate.org...
7. http://www.debate.org...
8. http://www.debate.org...
wierdman

Con

I thank my opponent for his post and look forward to a fruitful debate.

HIS CASE:
It seems to me that what my opponent has done is list several New Deal policies and their effects without actually explaining how these policies managed to prolong the depression. Let's start with the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1933. True these acts limited the amount of agriculture that could be produced by farmers; it did not in any way prolong the depression. In fact these policies increased the recovery.

Why?

By reducing the amount of agriculture that is put into circulation, the government was able to create inflation. "Fewer crops would help raise prices. Then, the income of the farmer would rise. The government therefore paid the farmer not to plant crops" [1]. The government upon forcing the reduction of agriculture subsidized the farmers for their loss. By doing this, the government was able to help farmers increase their profits, which in the long run increased consumer spending. Researchers concluded, "To the extent that the AAA control-program has been responsible for the increased price [as well as], increased the amount of goods and services consumed by the cotton tenants and croppers area." [2] With new spending injected into the economy by these farmers, this New Deal policy kept the United States economy from complete collapse.

"Mr. Higgs argues:

"The objective was to raise farm commodity prices until they reached a much higher "parity" level. The millions who could hardly feed and clothe their families can be forgiven for questioning the nobility of a program designed to make food and fiber more expensive. Though this was called an "emergency" measure, no President since has seen fit to declare the emergency over." [2]"

This evidence brought up by my opponent ones again fails to show us that the new deal policy slowed down America"s recovery from the depression. It simply questions "nobility" of the policy. True the nobility of the policy is questionable, the fact still remains that the effects that the policy had on the economy was beyond helpful. If these polices were never put into effect, the American farmer would continue to produce excessively thus pushing the economy further into depression.

High Wages:
FDR raised minimum wage knowing fully well that it would increase the unemployment rate. His goal however; was not to decrease unemployment, but to stabilize the economy. By increasing the wages, FDR was able to ensure that those employed had enough revenue to buy the goods made by industries. "In the US, under the New Deal, dealing with deflation was deemed to be important, and keeping wages high enough so that people could buy the products of industry was part of FDR"s policy. It meant higher unemployment, but a growing sphere of a new economy." [3] In contrast, if FDR had left the industries to continue to pay workers lower wages, these individuals would not have enough income and confidence to spend. Without spending industries would start to fail which meant higher unemployment and a faster rate of collapse for the economy.

We have calculated that manufacturing wages were as much as 25% above the level that would have prevailed without the New Deal. And while the artificially high wages created by the NIRA benefited the few that were fortunate to have a job in those industries, they significantly depressed production and employment, as the growth in wage costs far exceeded productivity growth

The main problem with this evidence is that it focuses on productivity and output as opposed to demand. The only way for the economy to prosper at the time was if and only if there was an increase in demand. This is because an increase in demand leads to an increase in money circulation. To create this increase in demand, the government needed to give people more income to spend. This eventually led to an increase in employment because the increase in demand pushed for an increase in supply.

Unemployment

Look to previous paragraph for explanation on unemployment.

Congress created the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), perhaps the most popular of all the New Deal Programs. The CCC provided unskilled manual labor jobs for about 3 million unmarried young men, many of whom might otherwise have drifted into criminal activity. Organized into outdoor government camps, the CCC worked in conservation and development of land resources owned by federal, state, and local governments. They planted 3 billion trees to replace the forests that had been devastated by unregulated industrialization. They fought fires, worked in flood control, drained swamplands, and built public access and service roads in rural areas. Some 800 parks were created, and most state parks were updated. CCC workers wore uniforms, lived in tents, and received $30 per month in wages--$25 of which was sent home to their parents. The pay wasn't much, but the money and the work had a notable effect on morale. [4]

Devaluation of the Dollar

The devaluation of the dollar helped the U.S economy because it increased foreign demand for U.S goods. It led o an increase in export and an increase in GDP. " Keynes said FDR was "magnificently right" when he sharply devalued the dollar in 1933, even though we had a trade surplus and even though Keynes was British. The devaluation was seen (correctly) as a way of reversing the deflation. And it worked." [5]

So overall, my opponent has failed to prove that the new deal did not increase recovery during the great depression. In fact he only mentions two new deal programs in his entire case and even then failed to provide us with enough reason to propose that these policies prolonged the depression. He then goes on to mention all kinds of policies supported by FDR, but never really relates these policies back to any New Deal program and does not even attempt to give any arguments to show that the policies proposed were detrimental to the economy as a whole. He does not make any statement giving us an idea of how much faster the economic recovery would have been without these new deal programs.
High Taxes

FDR only raised taxes to finance the war which served as a final thrust out of the depression.

Sources:
[1] http://www.yale.edu...

[2] http://www.pccua.edu...

[3] http://firedoglake.com...

[4] http://www.authentichistory.com...

[5] http://www.economist.com...
Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Pro

My Case

Prices

My opponent says that increasing prices increased profits for the farmers. However, this is completely wrong as in the theory of supply and demand. Higher prices means less people can buy goods and thus farmers earn less profit. Demand was high for food, but because of the lack of supply, prices were higher and people could not afford what they needed. In addition, the AAA created more unemployment among sharecroppers and monopolies among big farmers:

"The AAA did not help the sharecroppers though. These people, and there were three million sharecroppers, did not own their land. Many sharecroppers were African American and they lived lives of poverty. In the immediate aftermath of the AAA, they got employment from farmers to destroy the farmers' crops. Once this had been done, they had nothing to do and many left the land and moved to the ghettos in the cities where they faced similar poverty." [1]

Luckily, the AAA was ruled unconstitutional in 1936. This is because of the monoply effects it created.

Nevertheless, the act hurt many people who wanted food and left many unemployed. [2,3]

However, the AAA was not the only act that drove up prices. The National Industrial Recovery Act was FDR's centerpiece to fighting the Great Depression. This drove up prices and wages (wages will be discussed later). Just like with the AAA, this meant less people could buy goods with higher prices. The video explains this well. However, did FDR succeed in bring the prices as high as he wanted in the first place? The answer is no. In fact, they practically brought back deflation later in the Depression. The country went back into deflation and remained under it again until World War 2, so it did not meet FDR's expectations according to the graph I will cite. [10'


High Wages

With higher wages, FDR hoped workers would buy good and bring the economy back. This is wrong because of the higher prices. Workers could not afford some goods like they were able to back in the 1920s. The whole reason an industry hires workers is to create profit, but FDR does not seem to understand this. Because industries did not have the profit they needed, they had less flexibility to hire more workers. In fact, the article my opponent cited even states this:

"You might hear that "it wasn’t the New Deal that cured the Great Depression." But that’s because the New Deal was always meant to save the American economy, to buy time while the international crisis came to a head."

In order to save the American economy, the Great Depression had to be finished, which the New Deal did not do. What saved the American economy was indeed World War 2, but this is not because of high wages or prices at home. This is because of demand from across the oceans. Because of outside buyers, businesses made more products for other nations and hired more workers. This was not because of the New Deal. The government's actions of giving people more money to spend did not do that. [2,4]

Unemployment

"Congress created the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), perhaps the most popular of all the New Deal Programs. The CCC provided unskilled manual labor jobs for about 3 million unmarried young men, many of whom might otherwise have drifted into criminal activity. Organized into outdoor government camps, the CCC worked in conservation and development of land resources owned by federal, state, and local governments. They planted 3 billion trees to replace the forests that had been devastated by unregulated industrialization. They fought fires, worked in flood control, drained swamplands, and built public access and service roads in rural areas. Some 800 parks were created, and most state parks were updated. CCC workers wore uniforms, lived in tents, and received $30 per month in wages--$25 of which was sent home to their parents. The pay wasn't much, but the money and the work had a notable effect on morale."

My opponent discusses the CCC. FDR made several programs during the Great Depression to lower unemployment, something that he did care about. If he did not care about unemployment, then he would have not made programs like the CCC. Even with the CCC and other similar programs that brought people work, unemployment still stood over 20% as my previous source shows. [3,5,6]

Devaluation of the Dollar

The devaluation of the dollar did not work. There was deflation by the end of the 1930s just like it was when the gold was first taken off. My opponent is wrong he says that foreign demand was increased. In fact, the article my opponent cited is not even on the Great Depression, but on China. Why did trade rebound? Two reasons. The first is obviously World War 2 and did need more military goods and the second is the end of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Mr. Cain and Mr. Lowrie write that:

"This was a massive tax to 60 percent on 3,200 imported products. The economy, along with the stock market, started to go into free fall." [7]

In 1934, the Reciprocal Tariff Act was passed that gave FDR the ability to create more liberalization in trade. The lack of tariffs brought back trade in the country. The gold standard did not have as much as a goal. Its important to remember that FDR put the nation back on the gold standard for a reason. However, the higher price hurt consumption. [7,8]

Higher Taxes

We can clearly see that FDR raised taxes during the Depression from Hoover's 63% increase to over 79% in taxes in 1935 based on the graph I will provide. This was a big mistake and rather foolish on his part. The first thing to note is the Laffer curve. If you raise taxes you risk losing revenue and getting less production. Raising taxes would be a mistake and at the same time only so few people actually had over $5 million in the 1930s. As a result, there was far less revenue than what was needed. World War 2 did not start until 1939, but the United States was not in it until later. [3,7,9]

Conclusion

I have proven that FDR's New Deal policies prolonged the Great Depression rather than end the it. His policies of higher wages, higher prices, and devaluation caused a negative effect rather than a positive one. Unemployment was high during the entire 1930s and many people were left unable to buy goods due to higher prices. Higher wages caused further negative effects and restricted more production and surpluses to lower prices. My opponent has not made a case.

Sources

1.
"Farmers and the New Deal." Historylearningsite.co.uk. History Learning Site, n.d. Web.
2. Higgs, Robert. "How FDR Made the Depression Worse." Mises.org. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, Feb. 1995. Web.
3. Edwards, Chris. "The Government and the Great Depression." Cato.org. Cato Institute, 1 Sept. 2005. Web.
4. Cole, Harold L., and Lee E. Ohanian. "New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis." Econ.Yale.Edu. Yale Department of Economics, May 2001. Web.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
6. http://www.debate.org...
7. Cain, Herman, and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9: An Army of Davids. Herndon, VA: Velocity ; Mascot, 2012. Print
8. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
9. http://www.debate.org...
10. http://www.debate.org...

wierdman

Con

My opponent says that increasing prices increased profits for the farmers. However, this is completely wrong as in the theory of supply and demand. Higher prices means less people can buy goods and thus farmers earn less profit. Demand was high for food, but because of the lack of supply, prices were higher and people could not afford what they needed. In addition, the AAA created more unemployment among sharecroppers and monopolies among big farmers

Even my opponent"s first source recognized the many benefits of the AAA. IIt"s negative effects where accounted for by other programs.
"Regardless of this, the Act did make a marked improvement in the life of farmers as prices rose, evictions markedly dropped and the farmers" income increased." [1]

My opponent ones again failed to realize that the AAA was only one of many new deal programs. The AAA served to increase prices of food products to increase money circulation and farmer profits. My opponent notes that these farmers were not making any profits due to high prices but neglects the fact that the government subsidized these farmers. Secondly his claim that people were not buying these products is false. Many American"s at the time were able to buy these food products with the help of the CCC, CWA, NRA, SSA, and FHA. These programs where designed to ensure that even with high poverty rates, American"s would be able to meet their basic needs.
" In 1933 alone, $100 million was paid out to cotton farmers to plough their crop back into the ground! Six million piglets were slaughtered by the government after it had bought them from the farmers. The meat was canned and given away for free to the unemployed." [1]
Without the AAA, American farmers would continue to over produce and with Europe"s economy unable to sustain imports, the American economy would collapse due to surplus. With farmers literally selling their products for virtually nothing, they would not have been able to maintain their farms leading to even more bankruptcy and more bank collapse. This would have futher extended the depression. The New deal programs although not instantaneously, ultimately led to an accelerated recovery.

With higher wages, FDR hoped workers would buy good and bring the economy back. This is wrong because of the higher prices. Workers could not afford some goods like they were able to back in the 1920s. The whole reason an industry hires workers is to create profit, but FDR does not seem to understand this. Because industries did not have the profit they needed, they had less flexibility to hire more workers :

Ones again my opponent provides no evidence to support his claim that American"s were not able to buy products even with the increase in wages. In his first speech his evidence talked about how the high wages depressed production and how it was not beneficial to African Americans. He never however, provides you with any evidence that explicitly or even implies that Americans did not spend.

In order to save the American economy, the Great Depression had to be finished, which the New Deal did not do. What saved the American economy was indeed World War 2, but this is not because of high wages or prices at home. This is because of demand from across the oceans. Because of outside buyers, businesses made more products for other nations and hired more workers. This was not because of the New Deal. The government's actions of giving people more money to spend did not do that.

Did the New Deal programs end the depression? The answer would be NO. But that was not the question. Did the New deal Programs accelerate the recovery from the great depression? Yes. The New Deal started the wheel of the American industries which supply the materials used in the war. If the New deal was not in place, America would have had neither the recourses nor the economy to supply the war. The economy would have completely crashed long before the war.

Even with the CCC and other similar programs that brought people work, unemployment still stood over 20% as my previous source shows.

Okay then imagine what the numbers would have been without these safety nets in placed.

The devaluation of the dollar did not work. There was deflation by the end of the 1930s just like it was when the gold was first taken off. ". The first is obviously World War 2 and did need more military goods and the second is the end of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.

The only reason why these foreign countries had so much interest in importing goods from the U.S was because of the devalued dollar. The devalued dollar presented these foreign countries during the war with the cheapest way to buy the resources needed to continue the war. Without a devalued American dollar, these countries would have most like found a different source to obtain their resources. One whose currency had less of a value in the global market than that of the U.S and any other industrial nation.

We can clearly see that FDR raised taxes during the Depression from Hoover's 63% increase to over 79% in taxes in 1935 based on the graph I will provide.

These taxes where used to supplement the new deal which kept the economy running and supplemented the war.

Conclusion:
My opponent has yet to provide any solid argument saying that the New deal depressed the economy"s recovery during the great depression. It seems to me that he is only arguing that the New deal programs did not solve the great depression, which is outside the realm of this debate. He talks of FDR"s policies which included high wages and taxes but fails to realize that these policies are not his New Deal Program. The only way he can win this debate is if and only if he can provide a solid argument showing that the economy would have recovered more drastically without the New Deal programs.
Sorry for any grammatical errors....I was in a hurry because of orientation.

Sources:
[1] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
1Historygenius

Pro

My Case

Prices

"My opponent ones again failed to realize that the AAA was only one of many new deal programs. The AAA served to increase prices of food products to increase money circulation and farmer profits. My opponent notes that these farmers were not making any profits due to high prices but neglects the fact that the government subsidized these farmers. Secondly his claim that people were not buying these products is false. Many American"s at the time were able to buy these food products with the help of the CCC, CWA, NRA, SSA, and FHA. These programs where designed to ensure that even with high poverty rates, American"s would be able to meet their basic needs."

My opponent fails to understand that the AAA was ruled unconstitutional and did not see to the end of the Great Depression, thus it did not help end the Great Depression. Roosevelt's actions of increasing monopoly and raising prices higher, the AAA did create negative effects. How can you tell? Consumption did not increase during the Great Depression. In other words, people bought less because FDR forced an increase in prices. If the AAA did not pass would it create massive turmoil among farmers? Likely no, in the 1920s Congress proposed a bill to support farmers, but President Calvin Coolidge vetoed it. Was there a massive depression? No, the 1920s was a very prosperous decade. [2,3]

Wages

"Ones again my opponent provides no evidence to support his claim that American"s were not able to buy products even with the increase in wages. In his first speech his evidence talked about how the high wages depressed production and how it was not beneficial to African Americans. He never however, provides you with any evidence that explicitly or even implies that Americans did not spend."

My opponent is lying here, I have always provided evidence in each round. All anyone has to do is check the sources section of my case. Not just that, I put sources down that explains how wages hurt and a video. The undisputed fact is that wages increases labor costs and causes negative effects to production. More workers would increase production and raise profits, but this did not happen. Just like before, I will place to the same sources. You guys already know about the video.

"Did the New Deal programs end the depression? The answer would be NO. But that was not the question. Did the New deal Programs accelerate the recovery from the great depression? Yes. The New Deal started the wheel of the American industries which supply the materials used in the war. If the New deal was not in place, America would have had neither the recourses nor the economy to supply the war. The economy would have completely crashed long before the war."

My opponent is now arguing that the New Deal accelerated the recovery which led private industries to boom in the war. Is this true? Nope. In fact, what did increase was more government intervention to force companies to increase production. As stated here:

"Investment took off from 1941 onwards to reach, as a share of GDP, way more than double the level that investment stood at in 1940. Why was that? Well, it was not the result of a pick-up in private sector investment. What happened was a massive rise in government investment and spending. In 1940, private sector investment was still below the level of 1929 and actually fell further during the war. The state sector took over nearly all investment, as resources (value) were diverted to the production of arms and other security measures in a war economy." [5]

Private investments and industries did not increase during the war, it was all government investment interefering in the private sector. In other words, industry did not boom even with World War 2. It is a myth that World War 2 saved the Great Depression. Private investments was practically gone during World War 2. Look at this:

"An economy can’t prosper when markets are being overruled by command-and-control rationing. During the war, companies found it easier and more profitable to produce for government than to produce for consumers. Even companies such as Eastman Kodak, the film and camera company, began manufacturing rifle scopes and hand grenades for the military. GM stopped making cars for civilians and made military vehicles instead. Tires, gasoline, shoes, beef, sugar, coffee and much else were rationed. The standard of living in the U.S. during the war collapsed; conditions for consumers were much worse than in the ‘30s. Remember that the best definition of a depression is: A period of time when most people’s standard of living falls significantly." [6]

As the video shows, war destroys wealth, it does not create it.

Unemployment

"Okay then imagine what the numbers would have been without these safety nets in placed."

The market would have become more stable and we would have seen far more rapid economic growth by 1936. Lee Ohanian has some information on it in his study with Harold Cole, but he also explains it in the video in the previous round. This is because industries would have been far more flexible and be able to hire more workers to produce more. Lower prices means the ability to buy more goods, higher prices means less consumption. [5]

Devaluation of Dollar

"The only reason why these foreign countries had so much interest in importing goods from the U.S was because of the devalued dollar. The devalued dollar presented these foreign countries during the war with the cheapest way to buy the resources needed to continue the war. Without a devalued American dollar, these countries would have most like found a different source to obtain their resources. One whose currency had less of a value in the global market than that of the U.S and any other industrial nation."

FDR put the country back on the gold standard a year after he took it off, but it was clear that the reduction of the tariffs was a far larger implication to a revival in trade. In fact, the US was pratically giving away war goods through Lend-Lease, so they was no need to buy them. [7,8]

Taxes

Taxes was raised later for World War 2 specifically, this tax increase was with the New Deal. Like I said, it destroyed incentives.

Conclusion

I have proven that the New Deal's policies of high wages and high prices had negative effects on consumption and economic growth. The Depression would have ended faster without the New Deal. World War 2 did not end the Great Depression either because government investments took over the economy. The private sector did not recover until after the war. Had the New Deal not been purused the recovery would have been faster.
Sources

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. Roberts, Michael. "The Great Depression and the War." Michael Roberts Blog, n.d. Web.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. Higgs, Robert. "How FDR Made the Depression Worse." Mises.org. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, Feb. 1995. Web.
5. Cole, Harold L., and Lee E. Ohanian. "New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis." Econ.Yale.Edu. Yale Department of Economics, May 2001. Web.
6.
Casey, Doug. "Escaping the Great Depression - and Extending the Greater Depression." CaseyResearch.com. The Casey Report, n.d. Web.
7. Cain, Herman, and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9: An Army of Davids. Herndon, VA: Velocity ; Mascot, 2012. Print.
8. http://en.wikipedia.org...
9. http://www.debate.org...
wierdman

Con

My opponent fails to understand that the AAA was ruled unconstitutional and did not see to the end of the Great Depression, thus it did not help end the Great Depression

Ones again I am forced to reiterate the fact that the debate does not ask the question: Did FDR's New Deal program end the depression? Rather we are evaluating just how much impact these new deals had on the great depression. In my last rebuttal I noted that the AAA increased profit for many farmers. The only attack that my opponent had on this argument was that there was no increase in consumption as a result of the AAA. He did not however provide any credible evidence to support this claim. He then ignores the fact that these farmers were subsidized for their loss. My opponent then goes on to state that even without the initial creation of the AAA, farmers would have survived through the depression. This statement could not have been any more wrong. If my opponent had read through the evidence provided in my previous update, he would have realized that without the AAA, farmers would have called for a revolution leading to further crisis. [1] My opponent then mistakenly compared the great depression to the roaring twenties. The biggest mistake here is that these are completely different era's riddled with completely different problems and situations.

On to wages.....

This is where it gets a bit tricky. My opponent claims that he has "always provided evidence in each round." I agree that my opponent has provided sources in each round, but non of these sources supports his claim that American consumers were not consuming. He sources claims that the increase in prices led to a decrease in production. A decrease in production however, does not equate a decrease or stagnant rate of consumption.

My opponent made the argument that the accelerated recovery from the depression was a result of an increase in "government intervention to force companies to increase production." He then provides us with a little paragraph from an external source to support this claim. A look into his source however, reveals the following: "What happened was a massive rise in government investment and spending." The new government spending was a result of the new deal programs. The government had to pay for these safety nets as well as the programs designed to generate production.

In response to my unemployment argument, my opponent states "The market would have become more stable and we would have seen far more rapid economic growth by 1936." What he fails to realize however was that the economy would have crashed long before any positives came along
He also fails to respond to the barrage of different New Deal Programs designed to make sure that the unemployed were still capable of meeting basic needs which meant that they were still capable of consumptions.

Devaluation of dollar:
The fact still remains that the devalued American dollar increased incentives for other countries to work with the U.S

Conclusion:

My opponents biggest arguments were consumption and growth. I have proved that the new deal solved these issues and as such accelerated the American recovery. The programs designed to act as safety nets allowed even the unemployed to continue to spend. Many New Deal programs such as the TVA created both incentive and ability for industrial and economic growth.

Sources:

[1] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
This was a really close debate until round 4, when con dropped a lot of arguments and skimmed through the rest. Overall, however, pro was able to prove that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression.

Pro wins the wages argument for two reasons - one, higher wages and higher prices equal the same standard of living as before; two, private investment was dead by WWII. As for prices, pro wins because he proved that consumption as a whole did not increase. Con relied on subsidiary programs that gave out free food, but this doesn't end a depression. In fact, it can be argued the opposite is true, although that's a subject for another debate.

Unemployment was a tie, as both sides skimmed through it. It isn't enough to argue that the unemployment remained at 20%, as it fell 9%. Taxes was also a tie. Pro relied too much on Conservative economics to make his point, which is wasn't this debate was about. Con took the Liberal side, which is just as prone to bias. Finally, the dollar argument was also a tie, as there was contradictory evidence from both sides without a reasonable conclusion.

Overall, pro wins on the wages and prices argument alone as the New Deal made both of these too high.

Sources to pro because he had a lot more sources than con. Con had a slight edge in reliability by not using Wikipedia, but pro had several reliable sources.
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
I understand. I just like getting more votes in to debates because I get more opinions in how I did and how my opponents do.
Posted by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
I've got to stop saying that I'll vote at X time, as I never do. However, I'll get to it, hopefully Friday. I don't really have that much free time currently.
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
Make sure to not forget Subutai!
Posted by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
I'll get to this sometime today.
Posted by BennyW 4 years ago
BennyW
How appropriate that pro's picture appears to be Calvin Coolidge.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
1HistorygeniuswierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
1HistorygeniuswierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt Pro had stronger arguments. I had to deduct conduct for misrepresenting his source. FDR did not take us off the gold standard, he made private ownership of gold illegal. Con accepted this as true, which was a huge mistake. The great depression was caused by deflation, so FDR made gold illegal in order to buy it off the people cheap, thereby increasing the monetary base. Con had better sources. Edu vs wiki; no contest. Pro's arguments were easier to read so he gets S&G