Did the New Deal really help or did it make it worse?
>>30556
It helped, but entering World War 2 helped more.
Doing nothing would have hurt rather than helped.
>>31363
The market would have fixed itself.
Yes
I'd say ask your grandparents about it but I always forget mine are way older than yours
It's really hard to find someone who actually lived through the depression and WW2 who didn't think the new deal helped
>>30556
it didn't really help but it didn't really make it worse
getting off the gold standard and the Fed not tanking the money supply was what helped
>>31386
>>31386
Hooverfags get out
>>30556
The New Deal's effects were more psychological than economic. It restored faith in the government and reformed capitalism. So yes, it helped immensely in preventing the kinds of instability that occurred at the same time in Europe and Asia.
>>31669
>Harding
>the most corrupt president in us history
>largely agreed to be the worst president of all time on most rankings
And let's not forget that the decade ended in massive financial disaster.
>>31681
This 100%. There's been some decent answers ITT, maybe this board won't turn out so bad.
>>31681
I think you could also say it was a huge force behind industrializing the nation, particularly out west. Arguably a lot of infrastructure of the 50s and 60s wouldn't have been possible without the New Deal laying the foundations.
So the New Deal helped, it just helped 20 years later...which isn't a bad thing, US government could use a little foresight now and then.
>>31363
Was it really entering the War that helped the economy or the fact that most every other country got bombed to fuck while America was left intact??
>>31616
Hoover didn't do nothing, he subsidized farmers and ship builders. He started a billion dollars worth of public works, including what would eventually be called the Hoover Dam.
I think it slowed down the coming of socialism, which is a good thing since the world will only be ready for actual socialism in the near future, not anywhere in the past.
>>31864
What the fuck, read about the fucking depression is all I said.
I think it was like a first aid kit for people who were unemployed or homeless, and World War 2 was the actual cure. Something to keep them alive until actual treatment came
Keynesian shills out
>>30556
made it worse long term
>>32520
>Steven "Steve" Horwitz (born 7 February 1964) is an American economist of the Austrian School.
>the Austrian School.
Was Social Security supposed to last as long as it did? Or was it only supposed to be temporary
>>32557
try to dispute some of the facts he lists there.
>>31386
Can you give an example of the market righting itself without state intervention. By 'the market' I of course mean the market and not a very specific sector of the market. Because for a market to be considered free there can't be a plurality of markets.
Here's a tip, you can't.
>>32569
It was supposed to be permanent. It would still be viable, you would literally only have to raise the wealthiest tax rates by 1% and it would be solvent for another 75 years.
Of course, Boomers will probably drain it dry, then leech of their children because they are entirely driven by a need to consume.
The development of new infrastructure and the like can't really be ignored. Even if the economics of the New Deal aren't the greatest, it seems to have helped the American people
>>32614
literally every economic downturn in American history before the Great Depression?
>>30556
It helped the US, yes.
>>32656
tfw you literally can't even understand the concept of the market
>>30556
It saved capitalism. So, made everything worse.
>>32639
What was wrong with the economics of the New Deal? The common argument that it was the war and not New Deal programs that "ended" the Depression is like saying the ND spending policies just weren't large enough -- the war being a very effective Keynesian stimulus project. The protections for labor set out in the New Deal are responsible for the middle class standard of living that arose post-WW2 and is now being slowly dismantled now that capitalists don't have a viable socialist alternative to fear.
>>32656
>the rebuilding of the south wasn't state intervention
>>32656
>implying market depression mattered pre-industrial revolution
>implying money pre 1900s wasn't backed up by actual gold
Once we went into mass manufacturing and living in large urbane centers, depressions were actually destructive, but beforehand they never got out of control because you always had to have material wealth to back it up.
Essentially the economy was too small until post WW1 for any depression to actually do any major, lasting damage.
There is definitely some truth to the market righting itself...but the economy hasn't been small enough for that in about a century.
To be fair to Hoover, he was a strong believer in a voluntary "associative" state in which the government interacted with corporations and the public through commissions and expert advice in order to advise and help guide the economy towards the most beneficial outcome. He didn't believe in direct aid to corporations or individual Americans, which is why his attempts to keep the market propped up via voluntary wage and price agreements between labor and big business failed as the Depression deepened and corporations began breaking these deals. With no effective means of enforcing these negotiated solutions, the economy failed.
Hoover's unwillingness to directly support Americans with federal aid doomed his Presidency. But despite this, he made every possible attempt he felt the government could make to improve the economy without overstepping what he felt were the limits of federal intervention.
>>32750
Because it took resources away from the private sector
building new roads and shit is all very good but if you've got bankers, nurses and toolmakers doing it then its not very efficient or good for long term productivity
>>32786
you do realize industrialization took place in the 19th century?
>>32827
If a toolmaker doesn't have any customers it would be better for him to build roads in the meantime than do nothing and not have an income.
>>30556
It saved the American economy.
>war helps the economy
It objectively did because America didn't do any fighting until 1942 by which time all the dirty stuff had been more or less been done. Between 1939-1942, the USA thrived from exporting goods to Europe to fund the war effort. In return, the USA's gold (there was a gold standard back then) supply went from roughly 20% to 70% of world reserves. This is basically why the military industrial complex exists: war is profitable to the people funding it.
>>32520
>Austrian economics
top kek
>>32931
>war helps the economy
It objectively did because America didn't do any fighting until 1942 by which time all the dirty stuff had been more or less been done. Between 1939-1942, the USA thrived from exporting goods to Europe to fund the war effort. In return, the USA's gold (there was a gold standard back then) supply went from roughly 20% to 70% of world reserves. This is basically why the military industrial complex exists: war is profitable to the people funding it.
Intended for >>32520
Of course it didn't America experienced the longer period of high and sustained unemployment in its history
>>32795
Hoover was an interesting president.
He was the building block of the New Deal, but like this guy said, didn't want to over step Federal Intervention
FDR over stepped and is considered better.
>>32878
You do realize it wasn't on the scale of the industrialization of the 1890s through 1910s?
>>32921
not if the private sector is expanding and there's demand for tools
problem with the Great Depression was the Fed kept destroying the money supply so no liquidity for private sector
>>32983
The New Deal was introduced in 1933, about the time the unemployment number in your chart falls dramatically.
Your post doesn't make sense.
>>33033
It didn't fall dramatically after 4 years of the biggest depression in US history a recovery was to be expected but thanks to the New Deal unemployment never returned to its normal level.
>>33095
It fell by about 50%. That's pretty dramatic.
>after 4 years of the biggest depression in US history a recovery was to be expected
That's what they were saying in year 1, year 2, year 3 etc.
There is no recovery from depression without government intervention. That's why the USA got out of 2008 much faster than 1929.
>>33095
>unemployment never returned to its normal level.
Have you looked at the chart you posted?
>>30556
US and Germany were two of the slowest recovering economies. Both had tight state control of economy.
>>33033
>unemployment starts going down
>new deal is implemented (after Hoover laid the foundations)
>unemployment goes up again
>war happens
>unemployment actually goes down and stays down.
>>33189
>US and Germany were two of the slowest recovering economies
They where also the worst affected
FDR was a dictator.
