Who thinks it was WWII that brought the US out of the Great Depression and not taxes and social programs?

[Lucky... 0]

That's the question, what brought us out of the Great Depression?

[Andrewwhyte 1]

You left out the option for "It was the eventual effect of surplus value accumulation by individual agents following a long term change in consumption patterns."

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You left out the option for "It was the eventual effect of surplus value accumulation by individual agents following a long term change in consumption patterns."

I just want to get an idea of what people think, then drop my data. It will probably surprise people, but I want to see what they think now.

[Gawain 0]

I don't have time to look it all up, but I believe we were "out" of the depression around 1936-7ish? But, interest rates didn't help after that, stagnant.

Drop your data...and if you have enough, why don't you share the data from the rest of the world compared to the US.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rhys 0]

The ability to print money without collateral was a significant move, the removal of the gold standard etc...

The Federal Reserve was apparently established to eliminate the frequent fluctuations in the financial sector and regain ‘faith’ in the system from the population.

Quote

The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It was created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, largely as a response to a series of financial panics or bank runs, particularly a severe panic in 1907. Over time, the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Reserve System have expanded and its structure has evolved. Events such as the Great Depression were some of the major factors leading to changes in the system. Its duties today, according to official Federal Reserve documentation, fall into four general areas:

The federal reserve is quite an intricate structure indeed, not many people understand how it works (including myself) entirely and such descriptions as;

Quote

Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

allow it to remain that way.


These grey descriptions along with the human primal instinct to gain the power over others, coupled with corruption, will make the Federal Reserve System a magnet for power hungry, corrupt criminals.

So I guess my answer to your question is; the Federal Reserve System was probably responsible for taking the USA out of the great depression.

Although it worked to a great extent and allowed the USA to be a great country (American Dream etc.) for the majority of the 20th century, It may burden the long term viability of the United states of America as the corruption that has quite obviously commandeered the control of the majority of the worlds recourses, has control through the federal reserve system, the control of the energy recourses and the influence of the meek, voluntarily subdued population. Hey achieve this through the control of desire.

This corruption is based on human nature and mans desire to be more accepted than his or her peers.

There is no need for such a small percentage of the population to control the vast majority of the recourses, this situation and this situation alone is responsible for the vast majority of the problems the world faces today.


World War 2 played a big part of it also of course, with such turmoil; it would have been easy for those that already had much power over others to 'steal' even more.

There would have been many other solutions, but the federal reserve would have been fitting for those that were consistently losing their major investments through the lack of faith they had installed in their investors.

The profit produced from production of weapons and defence systems would have been too big of an opportunity to miss as an investor, a war is a "Great market' for weapons companies and oil companies.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[bullin82 0]

i say all 3, i dont have any facts or info cause lets face it i really dont care and lookin up research and info seems to much like school. i dont feel taxes alone could have done much since most of the worlds populas was unemployed and if you tax a man makeig 0 from 10% to 25% you still mae 0 on taxes. so i would just say with the combination with the bunch (production increase and jobs WWII) and (higher taxes better structure) definetly made it happen when 1 or even only 2 of the facts wouldnt have done much.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I don't have time to look it all up, but I believe we were "out" of the depression around 1936-7ish? But, interest rates didn't help after that, stagnant.

Yes and no. Interest rates don't really define a recession, they might be acessory to one tho.

Quote

Drop your data...and if you have enough, why don't you share the data from the rest of the world compared to the US.

I don't have the rest of the world's data, altho it could be seondarily relevant.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

...most of the worlds populas was unemployed ...

The unemp rate in the us was 25% at the peak.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Near 100%employment

Right, during the war, but what was it before the war?

[Ion01 1]

Here are some facts:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Also, in the 1920's the economy took a bigger hit than at any point during the great depression. Why didn't it turn into a depression? Because the government stayed out of it!
http://www.meltingpotproject.com/mpp/2009/02/the-great-depression-of-1920.html

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

I just want to get an idea of what people think, then drop my data. It will probably surprise people, but I want to see what they think now.

Oh, I can't wait for your "data". So many of your other post have been so enlightening.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I don't have time to look it all up, but I believe we were "out" of the depression around 1936-7ish? But, interest rates didn't help after that, stagnant.

They thought they were, then the economy tanked again in '37.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

So the poll seems to be left at:

21 - only WWII
3 - Only Taxes and New Deals
13 - both

This is what I thought the results would be. It seems to be the common perception that the war brought us out, we hear it all the time and virtually everyone seems to parrot that, so I did a little research.

Here's my take. Depressions / recessions don't have start and stop dates like a football season, they transition and are very dynamic. If we go strictly by definition we must declare a recession gone when the GDP goes positive at all. Of course the employment mess can take years to reestablish, so that isn't reasonable. But it's important to look at data to see what the economy is doing, factor in tax systems and social programs to retrospectively determine what works and what does not.

Let's look at the Great Depression timeline.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gpd20-40.svg

The GDP before and after the GD are depicted here. The GDP fell immediately as the October 1929 crash hit and turned positive in early 1933. Even tho there was another recession in 1937-38 during the recovery, the GDP had recovered to pre-GD levels before that recession. And after the 37-38 recession was recovered, the GDP once again hit levels way above that of pre-GD GDP before the start of the war. So we can hardly say the war pulled us out of the GD or the 37-38 recession, so what was it?

Let's look at unemployment. Even tho that is not a strict component to whether we are in a depression/recession, it is a byproduct and usually the last thing to heal.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm

The first graph depicts the unemployment rate from 1929 to 1942. Unemployment was down to < 5% in 42, making me think the war had nothing to do with the recovery of the GD, as we entered the war in Dec 8, 42, officially.

So to bring all of the evidence together and make sense of the recovery we must understand any military spending, taxation and social spending and in this case New Deals.

When the GD kicked off, Hoover thought a laissez faire approach would work and even cut taxes. He thought, as many conservatives do today, that the market will correct itself in all times. After things went horribly with the recovery he decided to be proactive and increased taxes on the rich with his Revenue Act of 1932. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932

GDP fell drastically and Unemp flew up to 25% during these years of tax cuts and then, in 1933, flipped around and 4-5 years of economic success were realized. Unemp fell to 15% and the GDP flew past pre-GD levels. The things enacted from right before the recovery until the 37-38 recession were:

- Hoover tax increase
- New Deal 1933
- 2nd New Deal 34-36

It is clear that between the kickoff of the GD in 29 until the 37-38 recession within the depression that was wholly a recovery without the assistance of WWII. But the growth from the 37-38 recession was aided by WWII spending. I went into this research thinking it was wholly tax increases on the rich, New Deals and the sort, but after reading a bunch I think it was both. Of course I think it was primarily tax increases and New Deals, esp since that's what initiated the recovery and Hoover's inaction and tax cuts exacerbated the recovery and deepened the damage. I guess I would say that 70% of the recovery was due to taxes on the rich, New Deals and social spending. What would have happened if WWII never happened? Well, conservatives would say that tax cuts would fix everything and liberals would say that tax increases and social spending would be the answer. We'll never know, but what we do know is that Hoover's inaction and tax cuts early on obviously prolonged recovery and ignored human suffering. A series of tax increases and social spending obviously led to a quick set of relief that lasted 4-5 years. Of course military spending is just essentially a government social program that is more justifiable than conventional social spending, so I guess it was more borrowed social spending that once again supplied the ultimate recovery.

BTW, the 91% max tax rate was not repealed below 88% until 1963, during a great economic time, so once again high taxes are a positive thing.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

WWII.

All the eligible men were in the military and all the women were in the factories making tanks and planes.

Near 100%employment that had nothing to do with Keynesian economics. That dude just happened to be practicing during the appropriate period of time and got his name in the history books.

So how do you explan the recovery from 33 to 37? GDP not only flipped shortly after Hoover's Recovery Act of 1932 loaded with tax increases on the rich, but FDR increased taxes and social programs too. WWII spending wasn't until 38-39ish and we didn't enter the war until 42.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

This is what I thought the results would be

Well, you didn't leave an option for "none of the above".

I mean, leaving only three possible responses, all of which coincide with your point of view is great way to do a poll...

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

i say all 3, i dont have any facts or info cause lets face it i really dont care and lookin up research and info seems to much like school. i dont feel taxes alone could have done much since most of the worlds populas was unemployed and if you tax a man makeig 0 from 10% to 25% you still mae 0 on taxes. so i would just say with the combination with the bunch (production increase and jobs WWII) and (higher taxes better structure) definetly made it happen when 1 or even only 2 of the facts wouldnt have done much.

When the gov taxes they don't tax the poor. The bottom 50% pay < 3% of all taxes, so let's understand taxes are almost exclusively for the rich.

And the early recovery was without any real increase in military spending, so how was that a product of the war?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

This is what I thought the results would be

Well, you didn't leave an option for "none of the above".

I mean, leaving only three possible responses, all of which coincide with your point of view is great way to do a poll...

I guess I could have made an option for hocus pocus so you could have played. Sorry to have disinfranchised you.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't have time to look it all up, but I believe we were "out" of the depression around 1936-7ish? But, interest rates didn't help after that, stagnant.

They thought they were, then the economy tanked again in '37.

5 years recovery after the worst mess ever is a win. Esp since recovery was pretty quick after the Revenue Act of 1932 and New Deals.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I just want to get an idea of what people think, then drop my data. It will probably surprise people, but I want to see what they think now.

Oh, I can't wait for your "data". So many of your other post have been so enlightening.

Yes I know, filled with responses by posters like you ignoring data and deferring to rhetoric.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I guess I could have made an option for hocus pocus so you could have played. Sorry to have disinfranchised you.

Well, I'd hate for you to actually have to admit that opinions other than your own actually have merit, I know it'd be terrible for you.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I don't have time to look it all up, but I believe we were "out" of the depression around 1936-7ish?

GDP wise, yes. Unemp was still 15% in 37 from 25% in 33 tho. Technically we were out in 33 when the GDP was +, but unemp kept things ugly for years.

Quote

Drop your data...and if you have enough, why don't you share the data from the rest of the world compared to the US.

It was tehre, and it's relevant, but I ddin't reseach that.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Yes I know, filled with responses by posters like you ignoring data and deferring to rhetoric.

Data?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means..

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I guess I could have made an option for hocus pocus so you could have played. Sorry to have disinfranchised you.

Well, I'd hate for you to actually have to admit that opinions other than your own actually have merit, I know it'd be terrible for you.

If you have another option, state it. I don't see how tax uncreases, new deals, WWII and social spending didn't have a major role in recovery, but let's hear it.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes I know, filled with responses by posters like you ignoring data and deferring to rhetoric.

Data?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data

It's right there, numbers, information. I'm not talking nationalist rhetoric about how the the US is the best ever and how tax cuts, my friends, are the answer for everything. I'm talking numerically-based information.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

If you have another option, state it. I don't see how tax uncreases, new deals, WWII and social spending didn't have a major role in recovery, but let's hear it.

With you? No. I'm not in the mood to waste my time.

If it was coming from lawrocket or Tom A. I might. They'll actually discuss a topic as opposed to making partisan generalizations and resorting to name-calling.

You're so convinced of your own moral superiority you think no one's arguments have any merit no matter their content, you've shown that in other threads. It's a waste of my time.

Personally I think you're on here just because you're entertained by the sound of your own voice, so to speak.