Sunday, May 3, 2009
The Truth, As They Say, Is....
Economics isn't exactly a hard science, folks. It's comprised mostly of correlations, ex-post facto analysis, and, yes, intervening variables up the poop-shoot. To say with any certitude that any particular policy is the cause of ANYTHING is pure guess-work, period. Of course, this doesn't stop politicians, economists, economic historians, etc. from boldly trying to establish not just causality, mind you, but metaphysical certitude.................................................................Take the New Deal, for instance. On the one hand, you have most liberals saying that, yes, no question, Roosevelt and his policies worked/helped to get us out of the depression. On the other hand, you have conservatives saying the absolute opposite. The New Deal not only DIDN'T get us out of the depression, it made the depression worse, caused it to last a lot longer, etc.. I mean, talk about a differing interpretation on the same event. It doesn't get any more polar opposite than that..............................................................And like I said, it isn't just academicians who are gloaming onto these oversimplifications. Politics and demagogues are also involved. The bottom-line, folks, FDR and the New Deal was a mix (as is the legacy of virtually every president, frankly). I.E., it was probably a good thing that Roosevelt instituted the bank holiday early in his term. By most accounts (yes, even by those highly critical of Roosevelt), that was an act which seemed to restore the public's trust in the system. The Agricultural Adjustment Act - that, on the other hand, was probably a bone-headed move. First of all, a lot of food was wasted. And, second of all, it primarily helped wealthier farmers, not the impoverished people who really needed the help.................................................................Look, folks, all I can do is give you the numbers here. These are unemployment rates from the bureau of labor statistics, 1933-1942; 1933 - 24.9%, 1934 - 21.7%, 1935 - 20.1%, 1936 - 17.0%, 1937 - 14.3%, 1938 - 19.0%, 1939 - 17.2%, 1940 - 14.6%, 1941 - 9.9%, 1942 - 4.7% (the reduction in the early 1940s, more than likely - again, a guess - due to the draft and an increase in weapons production). They clearly indicate a reduction in unemployment from 1933-1937 (still light-years away from full employment, though), an increase in 1938 (the depression within a depression), and incremental reductions afterwards. Did FDR's policies cause these reductions, or did they in fact retard them? Correlate away, my friends.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Will said "Look, folks, all I can do is give you the numbers here. These are unemployment rates from the bureau of labor statistics, 1933-1942; 1933 - 24.9%, 1934 - 21.7%, 1935 - 20.1%, 1936 - 17.0%, 1937 - 14.3%, 1938 - 19.0%, 1939 - 17.2%, 1940 - 14.6%, 1941 - 9.9%, 1942 - 4.7% (the reduction in the early 1940s, more than likely - again, a guess - due to the draft and an increase in weapons production). They clearly indicate a reduction in unemployment from 1933-1937 (still light-years away from full employment, though), an increase in 1938 (the depression within a depression), and incremental reductions afterwards. Did FDR's policies cause these reductions, or did they in fact retard them? Correlate away, my friends."
Its really pretty simple Will FDR's New Deal policies to stimulate the economy were working till 1938 when he ACTUALLY listened to the repugs and stopped spending and worried about the budget deficit then unemployment went up again when he did.
And No Will thats repug gobbledygook BS that weapons production, and dropping bombs and starting wars "stimulate" an economy..............spending is the ONLY thing that can pull economies out of deflationary depressions and it was the SPENDING due to the war that helped pull us out of the Great Depression and bring down unemplyment not weapons production or dropping bombs on people.
The spending from the war was New Deal stimulus spending on steroids and the figures clearly bear this out.
Will said "
Piss On Susan Collins, Go Ahead
Note to Olbermann. The purpose of the stimulus package was to stimulate the frigging economy. It wasn't to be a Christmas tree for every solitary goodie that we've come to expect from the government. And, yes, this also includes a lot of potentially positive things; methods to battle the dreaded swine flu, etc.. The fact that you continue to cherry-pick examples of what you consider to be benevolence unattained (this, because certain people tried to trim a little off of this behemoth), damned if that doesn't say a shit-load about you, too, me-bucko. You want the government to spend more money on the swine flu? Fine. Get the Congress to pass something pertaining to it. Stop trying to jam something into a stimulus package. Ya' hack."
Sorry Willie but if your taking the typical repug BS argument that spending BEFORE disasters actually occur to PREVENT them is wasteful pork good luck with that crap WIlly.
See you CANT prevent a contageous epidemic AFTER it occurs any more than you can prevent a hurricane or a Financial Crisis............but I will tell you this..............it'll cost a whole hell of a lot less money to prevent a disaster than to try to clean one up. then prevent the next one.
I mean id we would have shored up New Orleans BEFORE the storm actually hit or regulated the banks and mortgage companies before this happened and done the bailout earlier it would have been far less costly then sticking your head in the sand and calling your opponemts Socialists then giving exponentially MORE money to Wall Street elites than if they had acted earlier.
I find it even MORE telling that you choose to call funds to prevent disasters and save lives that is a prime responsibility of goverment "WASTEFULL PORK"
I didn't call it, "wasteful pork". I was just citing the fact that a stimulus bill is supposed to be for stimulating the economy, not to provide for every single possible permutation of need. And I don't like the way that Olbermann cherry-picks his examples. It's very O'Reillyesque.
I wasn't saying that the war "got us out of the depression". I was only pointing to the fact that the lower unemployment figures were probably not a function of economic policy but more due to the fact that people were "employed" in fighting a war. The war in fact DIDN'T get us out of the depression.
Mike is right Will
Mike MAY be right. But he also may be wrong. My only point is that absolutes can never be ascertained via an ex-post facto correlational analysis. That and the fact that Roosevelt wasn't perfect.
Post a Comment