Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Myth that WWII Ended the Great Depression

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 1:41:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Many on both the right and left claim that WWII ended the Great Depression. For folks on the right, this offers an easy excuse to dismiss the New Deal and domestic activism as what ended the Great Depression. For those on the left, it offers an oppurtunity to show how a command economy can do good.

I, myself, am a man of the right. However, I do not hold this view at all. The standard of living of most Americans fell during WWII. Yes, some measures like GDP and unemployment did very well during the war. However, this does not mean much.

After all, there was no unemployment in Soviet Russia. And, GDP actually expanded at a decent rate for a number of years in Soviet Russia (although it was much lower than we thought). Of course, this did not translate into a higher standard of living for the citizens there.

Likewise, during WWII, output only increased because there was a huge increase in war goods not consumer goods. In fact, the private economy actually decreased during the war.

To be clear, I do not oppose all wars. I think WWII was a just war that was justified, but it was not economically beneficial. Wars have economic costs, and they are not good. People's standard of living fell during the WWII. The Great Depression did not end until after WWII ended and spending and taxes fell dramatically, and the economy could finally have a real recovery.

Look here for a good study on this: http://www.independent.org...
President of DDO
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 10:23:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/24/2012 1:41:27 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
Many on both the right and left claim that WWII ended the Great Depression. For folks on the right, this offers an easy excuse to dismiss the New Deal and domestic activism as what ended the Great Depression. For those on the left, it offers an oppurtunity to show how a command economy can do good.

I, myself, am a man of the right. However, I do not hold this view at all. The standard of living of most Americans fell during WWII. Yes, some measures like GDP and unemployment did very well during the war. However, this does not mean much.

After all, there was no unemployment in Soviet Russia. And, GDP actually expanded at a decent rate for a number of years in Soviet Russia (although it was much lower than we thought). Of course, this did not translate into a higher standard of living for the citizens there.

Likewise, during WWII, output only increased because there was a huge increase in war goods not consumer goods. In fact, the private economy actually decreased during the war.

To be clear, I do not oppose all wars. I think WWII was a just war that was justified, but it was not economically beneficial. Wars have economic costs, and they are not good. People's standard of living fell during the WWII. The Great Depression did not end until after WWII ended and spending and taxes fell dramatically, and the economy could finally have a real recovery.

Look here for a good study on this: http://www.independent.org...

Your facts are incorrect, almost all of them.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 10:50:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/24/2012 10:33:32 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't deny that during WWII, times weren't exactly great, but prosperity did emerge after WWII.

That happens when one side blow up the other a in WWII. The US and its allies destroyed Europe and Asia, and then told them how it was gonna be. Thing were great here in the US.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 12:20:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/24/2012 10:33:32 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't deny that during WWII, times weren't exactly great, but prosperity did emerge after WWII.

That's because of the huge cuts in federal spending after WWII, I think they cut the federal budget 1/3. Not because of the war itself. As Ron Paul says, "War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures."

Remember, resources used in efforts to kill other people are resources lost from the free market where entrepreneurs develop new products that increase the general well being of society.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 12:31:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/24/2012 12:20:49 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 2/24/2012 10:33:32 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't deny that during WWII, times weren't exactly great, but prosperity did emerge after WWII.

That's because of the huge cuts in federal spending after WWII, I think they cut the federal budget 1/3. Not because of the war itself. As Ron Paul says, "War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures."

Remember, resources used in efforts to kill other people are resources lost from the free market where entrepreneurs develop new products that increase the general well being of society.

Never in History has there been a Free Market....its a myth.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 12:37:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here's what RoyLatham commented on a recent debate of mine that touched on the Great Depression:

Government policies prolonged the Depression through WWII. The War was not a boom time. The Depression ended when the government laid off 10 million temporary workers (soldiers) and cut the budget by 60%. Other examples of spending cuts rescuing an economy are Canada post-1995 and Puerto Rico post-2000.

Just thought I should share as it pertained to the topic. Indeed, it was not WWII that brought prosperity. War and preparations for war are always, without exception, destructive to the economy as a whole.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 12:44:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/24/2012 12:37:07 PM, jat93 wrote:
Here's what RoyLatham commented on a recent debate of mine that touched on the Great Depression:

Government policies prolonged the Depression through WWII. The War was not a boom time. The Depression ended when the government laid off 10 million temporary workers (soldiers) and cut the budget by 60%. Other examples of spending cuts rescuing an economy are Canada post-1995 and Puerto Rico post-2000.

Just thought I should share as it pertained to the topic. Indeed, it was not WWII that brought prosperity. War and preparations for war are always, without exception, destructive to the economy as a whole.

WWII was the direct cause of the economic boom that followed. Americas worst generation, used that prosperity to justify its creating the mess we have today.
Freemarketer
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 1:01:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/24/2012 12:44:29 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/24/2012 12:37:07 PM, jat93 wrote:
Here's what RoyLatham commented on a recent debate of mine that touched on the Great Depression:

Government policies prolonged the Depression through WWII. The War was not a boom time. The Depression ended when the government laid off 10 million temporary workers (soldiers) and cut the budget by 60%. Other examples of spending cuts rescuing an economy are Canada post-1995 and Puerto Rico post-2000.

Just thought I should share as it pertained to the topic. Indeed, it was not WWII that brought prosperity. War and preparations for war are always, without exception, destructive to the economy as a whole.

WWII was the direct cause of the economic boom that followed. Americas worst generation, used that prosperity to justify its creating the mess we have today.

Logicrules, I have noticed that in all of your comments you have made blanket assertions without any theoretical or empirical support.
Freemarketer
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 1:04:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I will also point out that the war did seem to help fuel prosperity by leading to technological advances. However, there is a very good chance that these technological advances would have occurred without the war.

All in all, Jim is correct that World War II did not end the Great Depression.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 1:06:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/24/2012 1:01:21 PM, Freemarketer wrote:
At 2/24/2012 12:44:29 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/24/2012 12:37:07 PM, jat93 wrote:
Here's what RoyLatham commented on a recent debate of mine that touched on the Great Depression:

Government policies prolonged the Depression through WWII. The War was not a boom time. The Depression ended when the government laid off 10 million temporary workers (soldiers) and cut the budget by 60%. Other examples of spending cuts rescuing an economy are Canada post-1995 and Puerto Rico post-2000.

Just thought I should share as it pertained to the topic. Indeed, it was not WWII that brought prosperity. War and preparations for war are always, without exception, destructive to the economy as a whole.

WWII was the direct cause of the economic boom that followed. Americas worst generation, used that prosperity to justify its creating the mess we have today.


Logicrules, I have noticed that in all of your comments you have made blanket assertions without any theoretical or empirical support.

You notice incorrectly and assume you have read ALL. I am unable to prove a negative, having a fairly good understanding of economics and history I can say that there has never been a Free Market. If you disagree...tell me when there was such a thing. It is a myth, jut like "America, land of the free home of the Brave"
Freemarketer
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 1:08:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/24/2012 1:06:11 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/24/2012 1:01:21 PM, Freemarketer wrote:
At 2/24/2012 12:44:29 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/24/2012 12:37:07 PM, jat93 wrote:
Here's what RoyLatham commented on a recent debate of mine that touched on the Great Depression:

Government policies prolonged the Depression through WWII. The War was not a boom time. The Depression ended when the government laid off 10 million temporary workers (soldiers) and cut the budget by 60%. Other examples of spending cuts rescuing an economy are Canada post-1995 and Puerto Rico post-2000.

Just thought I should share as it pertained to the topic. Indeed, it was not WWII that brought prosperity. War and preparations for war are always, without exception, destructive to the economy as a whole.

WWII was the direct cause of the economic boom that followed. Americas worst generation, used that prosperity to justify its creating the mess we have today.


Logicrules, I have noticed that in all of your comments you have made blanket assertions without any theoretical or empirical support.

You notice incorrectly and assume you have read ALL. I am unable to prove a negative, having a fairly good understanding of economics and history I can say that there has never been a Free Market. If you disagree...tell me when there was such a thing. It is a myth, jut like "America, land of the free home of the Brave"

I was actually referring to your assertion that World War II ended the Great Depression. As I mentioned, the war may have helped by leading to new technology, but that is unlikely.

That is not a negative. The burden of proof is on you for that claim.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 1:23:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/24/2012 1:08:50 PM, Freemarketer wrote:
At 2/24/2012 1:06:11 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/24/2012 1:01:21 PM, Freemarketer wrote:
At 2/24/2012 12:44:29 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/24/2012 12:37:07 PM, jat93 wrote:
Here's what RoyLatham commented on a recent debate of mine that touched on the Great Depression:

Government policies prolonged the Depression through WWII. The War was not a boom time. The Depression ended when the government laid off 10 million temporary workers (soldiers) and cut the budget by 60%. Other examples of spending cuts rescuing an economy are Canada post-1995 and Puerto Rico post-2000.

Just thought I should share as it pertained to the topic. Indeed, it was not WWII that brought prosperity. War and preparations for war are always, without exception, destructive to the economy as a whole.

WWII was the direct cause of the economic boom that followed. Americas worst generation, used that prosperity to justify its creating the mess we have today.


Logicrules, I have noticed that in all of your comments you have made blanket assertions without any theoretical or empirical support.

You notice incorrectly and assume you have read ALL. I am unable to prove a negative, having a fairly good understanding of economics and history I can say that there has never been a Free Market. If you disagree...tell me when there was such a thing. It is a myth, jut like "America, land of the free home of the Brave"


I was actually referring to your assertion that World War II ended the Great Depression. As I mentioned, the war may have helped by leading to new technology, but that is unlikely.

That is not a negative. The burden of proof is on you for that claim.

All depends on where you place the date of the Great Depression. It seems to me it is an historical reference, like middle ages, and defies an exact dating. (see current economic mess) However, there is little doubt that coming out of the war the USA was in the best position to manufacture and provide goods and service for the countries we destroyed. Thus, the war is the direct cause of the prosperity that followed. Left to his devices FDR liked the depression and would have continued it I believe, he liked power. (Killing millions always improves unemployment stats.)
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 2:49:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/24/2012 1:23:45 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/24/2012 1:08:50 PM, Freemarketer wrote:
At 2/24/2012 1:06:11 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/24/2012 1:01:21 PM, Freemarketer wrote:
At 2/24/2012 12:44:29 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/24/2012 12:37:07 PM, jat93 wrote:
Here's what RoyLatham commented on a recent debate of mine that touched on the Great Depression:

Government policies prolonged the Depression through WWII. The War was not a boom time. The Depression ended when the government laid off 10 million temporary workers (soldiers) and cut the budget by 60%. Other examples of spending cuts rescuing an economy are Canada post-1995 and Puerto Rico post-2000.

Just thought I should share as it pertained to the topic. Indeed, it was not WWII that brought prosperity. War and preparations for war are always, without exception, destructive to the economy as a whole.

WWII was the direct cause of the economic boom that followed. Americas worst generation, used that prosperity to justify its creating the mess we have today.


Logicrules, I have noticed that in all of your comments you have made blanket assertions without any theoretical or empirical support.

You notice incorrectly and assume you have read ALL. I am unable to prove a negative, having a fairly good understanding of economics and history I can say that there has never been a Free Market. If you disagree...tell me when there was such a thing. It is a myth, jut like "America, land of the free home of the Brave"


I was actually referring to your assertion that World War II ended the Great Depression. As I mentioned, the war may have helped by leading to new technology, but that is unlikely.

That is not a negative. The burden of proof is on you for that claim.

All depends on where you place the date of the Great Depression. It seems to me it is an historical reference, like middle ages, and defies an exact dating. (see current economic mess) However, there is little doubt that coming out of the war the USA was in the best position to manufacture and provide goods and service for the countries we destroyed. Thus, the war is the direct cause of the prosperity that followed. Left to his devices FDR liked the depression and would have continued it I believe, he liked power. (Killing millions always improves unemployment stats.)

The point I was making the OP is that war does not increase standard of living.

I understand that unemployment fell dramatically during the war and output expanded. However, this was only because war goods were being produced. Consumers were not benefitting. The standard of living was not increasing.

It was not until after the war when the market was allowed to correct that real recovery happened.
President of DDO
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 3:19:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rather than rehash, I'll simply paste and slightly modify my response in my thread on America's most evil presidentes (which is where I believe you were inspired to start this thread).

I suppose that right-libertarians such as yourself think that it was the natural workings of free-market principles that eventually cured the systemic economic ills of the Depression era economy (even though, quite paradoxically, you free-market fundamentalists also deny that the "free market" has ever actually been allowed to do its magical thing in an unhindered fashion, but then this serves your rationalizing purposes by allowing you to facilely attribute all of the market's failures to government interference)?! Well, your Godlike in its inerrancy "free market" apparently hasn't done all that good a job, the same ills just keep recurring. That's because a predisposition to these ills is downright endemic in the very nature of capitalism. Oh sure, the current state of ailing health of the economy will eventually go into temporary remission, but then it will eventually, inexorably relapse right back into infirmity. Alas, this is the eternally-recurrent vicious cycle of things under capitalism, the only way to break this cycle is for our society to finally evolve beyond the perennially unwell captalist socioeconomic paradigm.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 3:32:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The War stimulated industries and production, kicked unemployment down through hiring women (Rosie the riveter ringing a bell?), and then instituted a safety plan known as the GI Bill of Rights that was single-handedly responsible for putting thousands of returning veterans to work and providing a new educated generation that would facilitate the affluence of the 50s.

At some point I realize that even though you wrote a lot, you didn't actually write anything of value....This is becoming a pattern on this site.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 3:41:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/24/2012 2:49:38 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/24/2012 1:23:45 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/24/2012 1:08:50 PM, Freemarketer wrote:
At 2/24/2012 1:06:11 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/24/2012 1:01:21 PM, Freemarketer wrote:
At 2/24/2012 12:44:29 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/24/2012 12:37:07 PM, jat93 wrote:
Here's what RoyLatham commented on a recent debate of mine that touched on the Great Depression:

Government policies prolonged the Depression through WWII. The War was not a boom time. The Depression ended when the government laid off 10 million temporary workers (soldiers) and cut the budget by 60%. Other examples of spending cuts rescuing an economy are Canada post-1995 and Puerto Rico post-2000.

Just thought I should share as it pertained to the topic. Indeed, it was not WWII that brought prosperity. War and preparations for war are always, without exception, destructive to the economy as a whole.

WWII was the direct cause of the economic boom that followed. Americas worst generation, used that prosperity to justify its creating the mess we have today.


Logicrules, I have noticed that in all of your comments you have made blanket assertions without any theoretical or empirical support.

You notice incorrectly and assume you have read ALL. I am unable to prove a negative, having a fairly good understanding of economics and history I can say that there has never been a Free Market. If you disagree...tell me when there was such a thing. It is a myth, jut like "America, land of the free home of the Brave"


I was actually referring to your assertion that World War II ended the Great Depression. As I mentioned, the war may have helped by leading to new technology, but that is unlikely.

That is not a negative. The burden of proof is on you for that claim.

All depends on where you place the date of the Great Depression. It seems to me it is an historical reference, like middle ages, and defies an exact dating. (see current economic mess) However, there is little doubt that coming out of the war the USA was in the best position to manufacture and provide goods and service for the countries we destroyed. Thus, the war is the direct cause of the prosperity that followed. Left to his devices FDR liked the depression and would have continued it I believe, he liked power. (Killing millions always improves unemployment stats.)

The point I was making the OP is that war does not increase standard of living.

I understand that unemployment fell dramatically during the war and output expanded. However, this was only because war goods were being produced. Consumers were not benefiting. The standard of living was not increasing.

It was not until after the war when the market was allowed to correct that real recovery happened.

First...the market is fiction. It does not adjust for inflation, and is an avg. Second, Standard of living is subjective. There are those who claim the standard of living has declined in the lat 100 years. Is it better to have 3 cars, 4 TVs, cable, Cell Phone and a a 3000q.ft. house while hoping for "quality time" and owing more than you have? If that's better God help us. FYI prior to WWII the US was an agrarian nation, ie most of the population worked on and owned farms.

A few other thing that used to be
1. All drinks came in recyclable bottles
2. Cars got over 50 miles to the gallon
3. Disposable plastic was considered a waste
4. Cars that ran cot less than a months pay
5. Most people had a vegetable garden at leat
6. Chicken was more expensive than beef
5. Milk had all the probiotics still in it
6. Doctors made House Call because they didn't take insurance.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 4:09:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/24/2012 3:32:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
The War stimulated industries and production, kicked unemployment down through hiring women (Rosie the riveter ringing a bell?), and then instituted a safety plan known as the GI Bill of Rights that was single-handedly responsible for putting thousands of returning veterans to work and providing a new educated generation that would facilitate the affluence of the 50s.

At some point I realize that even though you wrote a lot, you didn't actually write anything of value....This is becoming a pattern on this site.

The fact of the matter is that material standard of living fell during the war. I showed that in the OP. But, feel free to ignore that.
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 4:46:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/24/2012 12:20:49 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 2/24/2012 10:33:32 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't deny that during WWII, times weren't exactly great, but prosperity did emerge after WWII.

That's because of the huge cuts in federal spending after WWII, I think they cut the federal budget 1/3. Not because of the war itself. As Ron Paul says, "War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures."

You do realize that post-WWII spending was higher then pre-Great Depression. Significantly higher, maybe even higher then New Deal spending.

Remember, resources used in efforts to kill other people are resources lost from the free market where entrepreneurs develop new products that increase the general well being of society.

Yes, however not all the resources from post-WWII were used in war, there was an increase in the labor force (women entered the labor force), there were significant advances in science from WWII research, and capital was created from the WWII era. Also war tends to have the effect of making government more efficient since there are more incentives to be efficient (winning wars).
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 4:19:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/24/2012 1:41:27 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
Many on both the right and left claim that WWII ended the Great Depression. For folks on the right, this offers an easy excuse to dismiss the New Deal and domestic activism as what ended the Great Depression. For those on the left, it offers an oppurtunity to show how a command economy can do good.

I, myself, am a man of the right. However, I do not hold this view at all. The standard of living of most Americans fell during WWII. Yes, some measures like GDP and unemployment did very well during the war. However, this does not mean much.

After all, there was no unemployment in Soviet Russia. And, GDP actually expanded at a decent rate for a number of years in Soviet Russia (although it was much lower than we thought). Of course, this did not translate into a higher standard of living for the citizens there.

Likewise, during WWII, output only increased because there was a huge increase in war goods not consumer goods. In fact, the private economy actually decreased during the war.

To be clear, I do not oppose all wars. I think WWII was a just war that was justified, but it was not economically beneficial. Wars have economic costs, and they are not good. People's standard of living fell during the WWII. The Great Depression did not end until after WWII ended and spending and taxes fell dramatically, and the economy could finally have a real recovery.

Look here for a good study on this: http://www.independent.org...

Weird hearing this coming from a right-winger.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 4:22:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 4:19:05 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 2/24/2012 1:41:27 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
Many on both the right and left claim that WWII ended the Great Depression. For folks on the right, this offers an easy excuse to dismiss the New Deal and domestic activism as what ended the Great Depression. For those on the left, it offers an oppurtunity to show how a command economy can do good.

I, myself, am a man of the right. However, I do not hold this view at all. The standard of living of most Americans fell during WWII. Yes, some measures like GDP and unemployment did very well during the war. However, this does not mean much.

After all, there was no unemployment in Soviet Russia. And, GDP actually expanded at a decent rate for a number of years in Soviet Russia (although it was much lower than we thought). Of course, this did not translate into a higher standard of living for the citizens there.

Likewise, during WWII, output only increased because there was a huge increase in war goods not consumer goods. In fact, the private economy actually decreased during the war.

To be clear, I do not oppose all wars. I think WWII was a just war that was justified, but it was not economically beneficial. Wars have economic costs, and they are not good. People's standard of living fell during the WWII. The Great Depression did not end until after WWII ended and spending and taxes fell dramatically, and the economy could finally have a real recovery.

Look here for a good study on this: http://www.independent.org...

Weird hearing this coming from a right-winger.

Lol. It is opposition to the idea that the command economic system ended the depression.
President of DDO
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 4:24:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 4:22:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/25/2012 4:19:05 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 2/24/2012 1:41:27 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
Many on both the right and left claim that WWII ended the Great Depression. For folks on the right, this offers an easy excuse to dismiss the New Deal and domestic activism as what ended the Great Depression. For those on the left, it offers an oppurtunity to show how a command economy can do good.

I, myself, am a man of the right. However, I do not hold this view at all. The standard of living of most Americans fell during WWII. Yes, some measures like GDP and unemployment did very well during the war. However, this does not mean much.

After all, there was no unemployment in Soviet Russia. And, GDP actually expanded at a decent rate for a number of years in Soviet Russia (although it was much lower than we thought). Of course, this did not translate into a higher standard of living for the citizens there.

Likewise, during WWII, output only increased because there was a huge increase in war goods not consumer goods. In fact, the private economy actually decreased during the war.

To be clear, I do not oppose all wars. I think WWII was a just war that was justified, but it was not economically beneficial. Wars have economic costs, and they are not good. People's standard of living fell during the WWII. The Great Depression did not end until after WWII ended and spending and taxes fell dramatically, and the economy could finally have a real recovery.

Look here for a good study on this: http://www.independent.org...

Weird hearing this coming from a right-winger.


Lol. It is opposition to the idea that the command economic system ended the depression.

The war spending ended the Great Depression. It increased GDP.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 4:29:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 4:24:58 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 2/25/2012 4:22:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/25/2012 4:19:05 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 2/24/2012 1:41:27 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
Many on both the right and left claim that WWII ended the Great Depression. For folks on the right, this offers an easy excuse to dismiss the New Deal and domestic activism as what ended the Great Depression. For those on the left, it offers an oppurtunity to show how a command economy can do good.

I, myself, am a man of the right. However, I do not hold this view at all. The standard of living of most Americans fell during WWII. Yes, some measures like GDP and unemployment did very well during the war. However, this does not mean much.

After all, there was no unemployment in Soviet Russia. And, GDP actually expanded at a decent rate for a number of years in Soviet Russia (although it was much lower than we thought). Of course, this did not translate into a higher standard of living for the citizens there.

Likewise, during WWII, output only increased because there was a huge increase in war goods not consumer goods. In fact, the private economy actually decreased during the war.

To be clear, I do not oppose all wars. I think WWII was a just war that was justified, but it was not economically beneficial. Wars have economic costs, and they are not good. People's standard of living fell during the WWII. The Great Depression did not end until after WWII ended and spending and taxes fell dramatically, and the economy could finally have a real recovery.

Look here for a good study on this: http://www.independent.org...

Weird hearing this coming from a right-winger.


Lol. It is opposition to the idea that the command economic system ended the depression.

The war spending ended the Great Depression. It increased GDP.

True. By most standard economic measure, the War ended the depression. However, my main point is that the standard measures were not appropriate as they did not indicate an increase in the standard of living.
President of DDO
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 5:09:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Good, except WWII was not justified.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 5:14:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/24/2012 3:32:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
The War stimulated industries and production, kicked unemployment down through hiring women (Rosie the riveter ringing a bell?),

Umm, no. That's not why unemployment went down. Women were not usually part of the labor force before the war so they were never counted in unemployment statistics. The reason unemployment went down is that the US gov sent a sh!tload of young, largely unemployed, men out of the country and then put a bunch of other men to work making converting valuable material into bullets and bombs and other things to inflict pain and suffering on other human beings.

and then instituted a safety plan known as the GI Bill of Rights that was single-handedly responsible for putting thousands of returning veterans to work and providing a new educated generation that would facilitate the affluence of the 50s.

Lol.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 5:15:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Great depression ended in the US in March of 1933, but lasted well into the 1940's in many countries around the world.

The first New Deal just starting to introduce legislation about the same time the Great Depression ended, meaning the new deal was too new to have had any real effect. This gave the appearance, that it was working.
The second New Deal, was introduced by FDR after the end of the Great depression, while we already were in a upward spike, again, giving the appearance it was working, when really if anything it slowed down the recovery.

between WWII and the great depression we the Recession of 1937 (from may 1937 to June 1938).

This was likely due to the second new deal, which was a series of bills passed between 1935 and 1936.

What really pulled us out of the Great Depression was the private sector, as wellas foreign trade.

WWII created a booming economy in the US, and made us #1 in world trade; because we were one of the only major producers not in ruins.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 5:19:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 5:09:41 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Good, except WWII was not justified.

LOL

Yeah, we just got bombed by the Japanese after they pretended to respect our wishes to remain neutral.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 5:23:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 5:19:12 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/25/2012 5:09:41 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Good, except WWII was not justified.

LOL

Yeah, we just got bombed by the Japanese after they pretended to respect our wishes to remain neutral.

Yes, we were being neutral when we sanctioned Japan, crippling it, while we continued to sell war material to the Allies.

We never should have gotten involved. We should have just let Stalin and Hitler fight it out. Defend America first.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 7:15:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 5:15:38 PM, DanT wrote:
The Great depression ended in the US in March of 1933, but lasted well into the 1940's in many countries around the world.

The first New Deal just starting to introduce legislation about the same time the Great Depression ended, meaning the new deal was too new to have had any real effect. This gave the appearance, that it was working.
FDR's immediate bank policies were the cause of the massive banking crises endig.

At 2/25/2012 5:15:38 PM, DanT wrote:
between WWII and the great depression we the Recession of 1937 (from may 1937 to June 1938).
This was likely due to the second new deal, which was a series of bills passed between 1935 and 1936.
Name one and explain it. The recession in 1937 was caused by massive austerity measures.

At 2/25/2012 5:15:38 PM, DanT wrote:
What really pulled us out of the Great Depression was the private sector, as wellas foreign trade.
Foreign trade hardly contributed at all to. And the depression was over by the time the private sector began becoming the main contributor to growth

At 2/24/2012 12:37:07 PM, jat93 wrote:
Government policies prolonged the Depression through WWII.
People say this but they never are able to name any policies or explain them

At 2/24/2012 12:37:07 PM, jat93 wrote:
The War was not a boom time. The Depression ended when the government laid off 10 million temporary workers (soldiers) and cut the budget by 60%.
GDP was growing again by 1934, in fact after 1934-1940 America saw double digit economic growth this growth continued into the war years
And those 10 million soldiers were then given government educations. Not to mention increases in social spending (IE not military spending) saw their largest increases during the time period after the war.
Also during the 1935-1970 period the government had way more regulations and control over the economy
At 2/24/2012 12:37:07 PM, jat93 wrote:
Other examples of spending cuts rescuing an economy are Canada post-1995 and
Only a fool thinks spending cuts caused the tech boom.

At 2/24/2012 12:37:07 PM, jat93 wrote:
Puerto Rico post-2000.
Odd how conservatives think a recession is an example of success
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 7:59:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 7:15:00 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/25/2012 5:15:38 PM, DanT wrote:
The Great depression ended in the US in March of 1933, but lasted well into the 1940's in many countries around the world.

The first New Deal just starting to introduce legislation about the same time the Great Depression ended, meaning the new deal was too new to have had any real effect. This gave the appearance, that it was working.
FDR's immediate bank policies were the cause of the massive banking crises endig.

At 2/25/2012 5:15:38 PM, DanT wrote:
between WWII and the great depression we the Recession of 1937 (from may 1937 to June 1938).
This was likely due to the second new deal, which was a series of bills passed between 1935 and 1936.
Name one and explain it. The recession in 1937 was caused by massive austerity measures.

LOL austerity measures my azz
Lowering the deficit is good for the economy.
At 2/25/2012 5:15:38 PM, DanT wrote:
What really pulled us out of the Great Depression was the private sector, as wellas foreign trade.
Foreign trade hardly contributed at all to. And the depression was over by the time the private sector began becoming the main contributor to growth

BS

At 2/24/2012 12:37:07 PM, jat93 wrote:
Government policies prolonged the Depression through WWII.
People say this but they never are able to name any policies or explain them


The Wealth Tax act of 1935, the Undistributed profits tax of 1936, and as stated before, the introduction of the second new deal

But hey what do I know, I only have a 100% in my economics course.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle