Comments on: FDR’s Lucky Timing

By: Telemachus

Telemachus — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:50:55 +0000

Isn’t the main criticism of Krugman’s use of such a plot the very notion of GDP? This metric is so blind to what was happening during that period of time that it borders on meaninglessness. I’ve listened to enough Austrian lectures that I know that the GDP measurement conceals more than it reveals, which is why it is typically rejected by the Austrian school.

Second, who is compiling these GDP measurements and what are they taking into account? A Federal Reserve Bank? Yeah, big surprise. This is related to my above comment. If it was in the interest of the State to publish nice looking GDP numbers while sweeping the basket-case nature of the economy under the rug, it will do it. No surprises there.

Why even bother to debate Krugman? A simple “Your numbers are meaningless” suffices, yes? Perhaps not. Maybe I’m just too unsophisticated.

By: Jonathan Finegold Catalán

Jonathan Finegold Catalán — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:53:15 +0000

Apologies,

My server crashed, and so I bought a new one, and the new link is at: http://www.economicthought.net/?p=14

By: Jonathan Finegold Catalán

Jonathan Finegold Catalán — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:08:12 +0000

Here are some thoughts on the reasons behind the recovery under the Roosevelt administration and the reasons for the 1937 crash.

http://www.economicthought.net/?p=30

By: Glen Risley

Glen Risley — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:03:42 +0000

Real recovery both economically and morally can only come when government gets out of the business of charity. I propose that the First Amendment Establishment Clause should prohibit Congress from purchasing the votes (and consequently the hearts) of voters. Congress garners its political capital through the establishment of humanist soul purchasing schemes from agricultural subsidies to Social Security. Where our treasure is our hearts follow.
Liberals are winning in the spiritual realm.

By: Jonathan Finegold Catalán

Jonathan Finegold Catalán — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:23:29 +0000

I think that the most important factor is that the bust bottomed out near 1933, which is when FDR took office. It was only inevitable that there was some sort of economic growth. The real argument is not whether there was economic growth or there wasn\’t, it\’s between the economic recovery which took place and the economic recovery which would have taken place had there been less government intervention. This is why it\’s important to draw parallels with the recession of 1921. It took over ten years to recover from the Great Depression, and real recovery did not begin until 1944 or 1945, near the end of the Second World War (whether due to an increase in the pool of real savings or because of a liberalization of the market due to the war effort).

Furthermore, I think that there needs to be a proper free-market study published in a book or an easy to access article on the \"depression within a depression\" of 1937 and 1938. This, no doubt, happened because of factors stemming from the Federal Reserve\’s credit expansion during the better part of the first half of the 1930s and due to Roosevelt\’s programs which led to a decrease in investment.

Studying these factors would better serve to disprove the myth that the New Deal brought about the end of the Great Depression.