The Instigator
NovaLux
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
dawndawndawndawn
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The New Deal is what got the U.S. out of the great Depression

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
NovaLux
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 555 times Debate No: 42918
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

NovaLux

Con

Voting Format
Round 1- Acceptance
Round 2- Supporting Arguments
Round 3- Refutation, no new arguments
Round 4- Concluding Remarks

Debate about whether the New Deal was effective in removing America from the Great Depression.
dawndawndawndawn

Pro

The War-Spending for WW2 is what did
Debate Round No. 1
NovaLux

Con

NovaLux forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
NovaLux

Con

Sorry about the last round- wasn't sure whether I should continue on , but I will still prove why the New Deal was not effective in getting the. U.S. out of its economic pit. And since I kind of screwed up the debate format, it wouldn't make much sense to follow it anymore.

Social Security- The notion of Social Security has been flawed from the start- a ridiculous business choice that would have failed utterly had it lacked the coercion of Government to back it up. Imagine an Ad for Social Security- Pay in your whole life, get money out, maybe (if you are lucky to live long enough)! Apart from the inverse incentive to individuals to not save money because "government's got your back" and the immorality of forcing people to invest in something they may or may not want (some people just don't live as long) it is simply unsustainable. Today we are selfish and live too long, so long that we take an average of 3 times as much as we put in, some more, some none at all. Is that fair? Maybe to the rich who are living the longest and getting the most from he system. The least FDR, or really the Congress that passed these acts, could have done is created a system with some relation to what you payed in. Unfortunately, we can only wish Government was that efficient.

Morale- One thing I will give FDR credit for is morale his programs inspired. Government was finally getting off its arse and doing something, the day has been saved! Now I'm not disputing FDRs leadership skills as he was undoubtedly the most qualified man to lead us through WWII. I am disputing the notion that government has to do something, that force must be used, every time something goes wrong. This idea has always been one of our fist instincts, but was for the most part distinctly unamerican. Yet the Great Depression was unheard of in its voracity (arguably because of Herbert Hoover's interventionist policies) and left many people hurting, while there was a growing attitude that a stronger government was necessary. Most people appreciated the New Deal, but most people didn't understand economics, especially at the height of the central planning fervor.

After WWII- Some people have attributed our relative levels of comfort to New Deal style government support. Where would all the poor people be if government couldn't support them? Most likely they would be in mutual aid societies which were prominent before the New Deal. In fact, about 30% of Americans belonged to them before the New Deal, and they were more efficient at helping out the poor than our current programs, selectively choosing those who needed help most (1). Another benefit lost in the misguided effort to help out others.

Raisin Advisory Comittee- Not really a serious argument, but typical of the routine inefficiency of government- In California there is a board that takes up to 50% of a farmer's raisin crop and holds it in a pool to be sold overseas at artificially low prices less then the cost of production in most cases (2). This was established during the New Deal, as it so happens, and still exists, along with many other detrimental and unnecessary programs established during the Great Depression.

Sources:
1. http://www.freerepublic.com...
2. http://www.naturalnews.com...#
dawndawndawndawn

Pro

I state, again, that spending for WW2 is what got the USA to better financial footing and "out" of the Great Depression, not the "New Deal".

"Sorry about the last round- wasn't sure whether I should continue on , but I will still prove why the New Deal was not effective in getting the. U.S. out of its economic pit. And since I kind of screwed up the debate format, it wouldn't make much sense to follow it anymore." Yes. You did.

"Social Security- The notion of Social Security has been flawed from the start- a ridiculous business choice that would have failed utterly had it lacked the coercion of Government to back it up. Imagine an Ad for Social Security- Pay in your whole life, get money out, maybe (if you are lucky to live long enough)! Apart from the inverse incentive to individuals to not save money because "government's got your back" and the immorality of forcing people to invest in something they may or may not want (some people just don't live as long) it is simply unsustainable."

This has nothing to do with your, original, question and is worthy of a separate debate.

"Morale- One thing I will give FDR credit for is morale his programs inspired. Government was finally getting off its arse and doing something, the day has been saved! Now I'm not disputing FDRs leadership skills as he was undoubtedly the most qualified man to lead us through WWII. I am disputing the notion that government has to do something, that force must be used, every time something goes wrong."

This has nothing to do with your, original, question and is worthy of a separate debate.

" Where would all the poor people be if government couldn't support them? Most likely they would be in mutual aid societies which were prominent before the New Deal. In fact, about 30% of Americans belonged to them before the New Deal, and they were more efficient at helping out the poor than our current programs, selectively choosing those who needed help most "

This has nothing to do with your, original, question and is worthy of a separate debate.

"Raisin Advisory Comittee- Not really a serious argument, but typical of the routine inefficiency of government- In California there is a board that takes up to 50% of a farmer's raisin crop and holds it in a pool to be sold overseas at artificially low prices less then the cost of production in most cases (2). This was established during the New Deal, as it so happens, and still exists, along with many other detrimental and unnecessary programs established during the Great Depression."

This has nothing to do with your, original, question and is worthy of a separate debate.
Debate Round No. 3
NovaLux

Con

I apologize for my conduct in the last round in speaking of topics mostly unrelated (more lasting effects and necessity than short term impact) to the economic effectiveness of the New Deal. As the original topic was programs from New Deal programs spanning 1933-1938, it wouldn't include war spending, but I could take a look of the effectiveness of that as well. I was originally looking forward to what arguments someone would offer in the defense of the New Deal, but here goes nothing. My argument is that private spending in the war effort was more effective than war spending, and that government spending crowded out private initiatives. The war, more than war spending, is what helped us most in the end.

Any time you throw money at a problem it's likely to improve, so the question then becomes how much bang you get for your buck. It's not easy to predict the effectiveness of an ever changing market, but government spending can be tracked reliably with a spending multiplier, or how much the GDP increases for every dollar in government spending. Robert Barro pegs the multiplier for WWII at about 0.6 (1), meaning that we got 60 cents of GDP for every dollar we spent, a number that Paul Krugman actually puts lower at 0.5 (2). Krugman brings up an interesting point that rationing and price controls brought down the GDP, lowering the spending multiplier even further, though I'm not sure they would fall under government spending.

Something else to consider is where the spending falls on the cycle of booms and busts- if the economy is worsening, then the spending multiplier is likely to be too low since the GDP was lowering anyway. The reverse was true for WWII, since the GDP was already gradually recovering as you can see by this graph: (The computer won't let me copy+paste images, so just go to the Wikipedia page for U.S. Great Depression).

One interesting thing about the unemployment graph is that the unemployment rose very little after a huge scale back in government spending following WWII. "Between FY 1945 and FY 1947, federal government spending was cut by 61 percent. This was a 27-percentage-point drop from 41.9 percent of GDP to 14.7 percent of GDP. Yet the unemployment rate over that same time rose from 1.9 percent to only 3.6 percent. The postwar bust that so many Keynesians expected to happen never did."(1). If it can be argued that reducing government spending had little effect on employment, then it could also be argued that government spending was not the main cause of the wartime employment, but production spurred by private initiative. War has always led to an increase in the economy due to a sudden demand spike, a common goal for all to strive for, and adversity. These hard times lead to increased responsibility and hard work, just as good times lead to complacency. In the short term everyone suffers personal austerity, learning to make do with much less than before, and this can lead to long term improvement. There are multiple reasons that war helps the winner, but less to do with government spending than most would claim.

Sources:
1. http://mercatus.org...
2. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...
dawndawndawndawn

Pro

It does not offend me that you brought up unrelated topics
but they are, very, strict around here.

The gov of the USA employed LOADS of people to make bullets, guns and tanks.
THAT employment solved the unemployment of the Great Depression.

This is pretty old news which is why I am so sure of my answers.

Personally, I see that a load of people shoved off to the suburbs after WW2, spent dough, worked,
raised the people that refused to have women not-work, refused to subjugate people of color,
set off to find them selves and then, made the huge mistake of having children
as the oil people started to ruin every thing.

So, 1920's rich people ruined every thing.
1930's People were STARVING.
1940's A stupid mustache did stupid things.
Our richies spent a lot of dough to kill off that mustache.
1950's A load of folks slid on a load of promises and had loads of children who
(1960's) grew up to change every thing but for got to remove the oil guys and were to
lazy to do the math that would have told them to NOT have so many children.

It really hit the tip in the 1970's. I, and parts of my generation, saw this and have been trying
to hang on, with all claws, to make us not go straight into the Matrix, surrounded by filth.

Frankly, not using petroleum and natural gas and not having children are the biggest deals of them all.

(OOOH! Did I just go on a personal rant? I apologize!)
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
So I have to pick up Con. The arguments are spurious and thin at best, but they are there, and they do address ways in which the New Deal could have been harmful to the economy. Pro never argues anything about the New Deal whatsoever.

And I found myself confounded with the responses I did see.

"This has nothing to do with your, original, question and is worthy of a separate debate."

This is not enough to provide over and over and hope that Con will just lose the round. It's not going to happen. Sure, some of those arguments didn't have anything to do with the original question, and others had questionable links to it, but since all you do is state that none of them ever responds to the resolution, I can't give you those reasons. You have to state them. If you feel Con is specifically avoiding the resolution with certain arguments, make it clear why. You leave it to me to infer what you mean, and I don't see it. Nor do I see anything in your rant that even vaguely resembles and argument in favor of the resolution.

And this gets me to conduct. Pro should have easily won conduct due to the forfeit from Con. She doesn't because of the ridiculously dismissive responses and argumentation, as well as the utter absurdity of the rant and the absolute bare minimum effort she places into providing even her non-topical argument. At the very least, Con apologized seriously for the forfeit. Pro's apology comes off as incredibly sarcastic following her rant. Con took this round seriously. Pro most certainly did not.

Lastly, Con was the only one with any citations, so he wins there as well.

Ugh.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
I honestly cannot believe I'm doing this. As soon as I saw the forfeit, I thought this was practically a slam dunk for Con. But then I looked at her arguments.

Admittedly, I do actually fall on the side for this argument, so I'll come right out the gate and say I had a little bias before reading this debate. The fact that a debate didn't happen over whether the New Deal did anything beneficial whatsoever by Pro, however, is a problem. That was her burden, whether she wanted to accept it or not. The topic reads: "The New Deal is what got the U.S. out of the great Depression." That doesn't allow room for a Pro argument that views WWII as the reason for the end of the Great Depression.

So that's the lens I view this debate through, and it makes it very disappointing on both your parts. Pro's argument completely removes her burden in the round and replaces it. There's simply nothing here. You spend the entire debate arguing past Con, or ranting. I get that you wanted a different debate, but if that's the case, have it elsewhere. Don't go into a debate with a clear burden set for your arguments and then outright ignore it in favor of what you'd like to do.

It's really too bad that Pro's arguments turned out this way, because Con made it very easy to win out of the third round. Almost all of his arguments have nothing to do with whether New Deal policies specifically had anything to do with getting us out of the Great Depression. Con seems to use this as an opportunity to critique liberal policies instead, mainly addressing them from a standpoint of what they do today. The rest of Con's post here addresses morale (a highly suspect argument), and mutual aid societies (not very good either). The economic arguments are also thin, and similarly focused on the present day, without regard for what these economists think about depressions and recessions.

But at least Con has arguments that vaguely address the issue. Pro gives no response, whatsoever, to these points.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Nova, I think that young people do not like to pay attention

:) Thank you
Posted by NovaLux 3 years ago
NovaLux
That was the argument I was going to make... some people still think that it was F.D.R's social planning
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
NovaLuxdawndawndawndawnTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.