"So it was that a revolution took place within the form. Like the hagfish, the New Deal entered the old form and devoured its meaning from within. The revolutionaries were inside; the defenders were outside. A government that had been supported by the people and so controlled by the people became one that supported the people and so controlled them. Much of it is irreversible. That is true because habits of dependence are much easier to form than to break."
--Garet Garrett, The Revolution Was, 1938

Yeah.

We shoulda just let those dustbowlers starve.

After all, they deserved it.

The whole book is available online here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/garrett1.html

"Yeah.

We shoulda just let those dustbowlers starve.

After all, they deserved it." -HeHe

Thats what the New Deal did.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=258&sortorder=articledate

Agh.

The whole "New Deal Made It Worse" theory is a very minority opnion amongst economists.

I'm not saying government intervention works most of the time (it doesn't), but the great depression was such a special case of a drasitc Kenesyian drop in demand that strong government intervention was nesescary.

"The whole 'New Deal Made It Worse' theory is a very minority opinion amongst economists."

And you've certainly sampled enough of the opinions of economists. What a Renaissance man you are.

BTW, it's "Keynesian" economics. A typo, I'm sure.

Saying "The majority of economists believe it" (they don't) is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Explain how government intervention was necessary and how it worked to shorten the depression.

I'm actually not interested in explaining it. Its increadibly boring.

Why don't you explain your "evidence" that global warming is a hoax.

Appeal to skeptics is a logical fallacy too.

HeHe,

Economists do not think the depression was caused by some sort of "Keynesian" under-consumption, what are you talking about?

Better yet, why are we talking to you? I keep making that mistake . . .

Are you fing serious?

The consensus opnion is that the Great Depression was caused by a lack of demand and that Government, defict spending- both in the form of New Deal progarms and -more importantly- the War effort, brought it back.

Some economists have challenged that view- Milton Friedman foremost among them. Maybe the critics are right, maybe they're wrong- but their challenging the concensus opnion.

HeHe,

You learn that in high school? You are wrong about the consensus opinion held by economists today. Particularly since you think it is explainable w/o reference to several factors, including international monetary supply and trade, as well as the changes in agricultural development. Your "consensus" view is about 5 decades gone with the wind, and Friedman's "challenges" have long since been absorbed into the understanding of the causes of the Depression by economists, although apparently not by you.

"The consensus opnion is that the Great Depression was caused by a lack of demand." -HeHe

This claim is uncited and false. There are two competing schools regarding the causes of the Great Depression. One, advanced by the Austrians, suggest that it ws caused by monetary policy during the 1920s, which took a loose money policy in a time of rapid growth-creating an artifical bubble, which inevitably burst in the form of the great depression.

The Monetarists believe that it was caused by a failure of the fed to maintain the money supply.

The Keynesian explanation, which you cite, has been discredited, along with the rest of its views on economics, since the 1970s. Following a Keynesian policy of running deficits during slumps to increase demand, and then raising taxes during high times to reduce inflation-results inevitably in the phenonema of stagflation, one inflation and unemployment rise at the same time.

"defict spending- both in the form of New Deal progarms and -more importantly- the War effort, brought it back."

Actually what the New Deal caused was a recession in 1937. The Depression ended because of a basic business cycle. The recession/depression caused savings to go up, credit to go down, and protected against malinvestments. Inevitably, this caused the economy to recover.

It would have recovered faster if not for the New Deal which, raising taxes, forced consumers to save less-thus stopping the business cycle from running its natural course.

"Some economists have challenged that view- Milton Friedman foremost among them. Maybe the critics are right, maybe they're wrong- but their challenging the concensus opnion." -HeHe

The Keynesian view of the depression has not been the consensus since the '70s.

It has not been discredited, it has been challenged.

Perhaps effectivlly, perhaps not. But not every economist agrees with the Austrian school.

HeHe, I don't get it. If everyone was starving, why was there a lack of _demand_? Isn't it, rather, that there was lots of demand, just not enough money for people to express that demand in stores... and that seems to be a monetary problem.

Just FYI, one type of argument conservatives don't find convincing (it basically defines conservatives) is the appeal to a consensus of liberal intellectuals.

Umm is that a real question?

Demand doesn't count if they don't have money to pay for it.

A wish is not part of the economy.

Ask the Africans.

HeHe have you no argument left except the (false) claim that my view is not the consensus view?

That is a mix of appeal to authority and appeal to majority. Both are logical fallacies.

Hold on here.

I concede to you that I have not put forth the proper argument here.

I really just don't have the time atm. Maybe I'll get to it.

But don't say I'm appealing to the majority when I say its the conensus view.

Although I happen to agree with the concensus view, it is not my argument.

I was just responding to someone who challenged the fact that its the conensus view.

Alright.

HeHe, yeah that is my point. So it wasn't a problem of demand (there was neediness to go around) or supply (there was plenty enough for FDR to throw in the ocean), but a monetary problem. That is, it was a problem of the supply of money, not the supply of or demand for goods.