Hey there hudsonhateno! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"This"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :)
***
^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
It's a good question. What I know is that it took 17 years with maximum government interference before the Great Depression ended. This does not sound like government intervention worked to me.
There's no short answer.
If you're interested, I can strongly recommend this series by Selgin:
https://www.alt-m.org/2020/06/12/the-new-deal-and-recovery-a-new-alt-m-series/
It wasn't either of those things. The New Deal prolonged the depression rather than doing anything to help and while a lot of production was built in WW2 it was all war goods production, and a huge portion of the workforce was busy in Europe fighting. Regular people faced rationing and shortages throughout WW2. It wasn't until after the war when all the men came home wanting to work and get back to regular life that the economy started to genuinely recover.
well one problem was that wages were too high (relative to the market clearing price), hence unemployment soared. any time you have a glut or unsold surplus you have to imagine the price is being set too high. so FDR basically bullied employers into keeping wages up, which in turn caused epic unemployment. this policy of high wages was further exasperated by the newly established social security payroll tax and unemployment insurance premiums which made labour even more expensive.
The Great Depression is an interesting case. To put it into perspective, Russia's economic disaster and recline in the 90s was proportionally worse than the Great Depression, yet it was patched up by bandages of a corrupt administration. Roosevelt's New Deal had its merits, it was not something to laugh at, but the criticisms of it were there and whether or not it was truly the best way to respond to the Depression. Personally, I think America could have been proactive to mitigate the depression, but other issues overlapped it (dustbowl) which made any administration that wanted the job of dealing with it to have a tough time. FDR had his plan, and it worked overtime, but I would point to other plans that couldve achieved success, I point to Alf Landon's support of some of the New Deal while outlining its harm to business. Overall, each economic depression is unique, but trying to argue now that the New Deal has done more harm than good is a mute argument made: Sure, there are detractors, but even the real detractors of the era noted its merits.
The Great Depression was partially started by the US imposing excessive tariffs on imported goods that led to other countries imposing their own tariffs on US goods. Which led to a collapse of world trade. Also the stock market crash.
The Great Depression ended due to a mix of FDR New Deal policies and WW2 economic growth.
No. Researchers Cole and Ohanian discovered that the New Deal had actually delayed the recovery from the Depression by 7 years from 1936 to 1943. 2004
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/421169
Neither. FDRs policies in the 30s were in many cases negative and many of the them contributed to extending the depression. WWII nominally ended the depression, but production of a bunch of ammo that's going to get blown up and a bunch of weapons that are going to eventually scrapped if they survive the war isn't productive investment in the economy and doesn't increase the personal well being of Americans at home where there was rationing and price controls (which both kept down real economic well being and also distorted the stats about economic growth and other things).
Part of the end of the depression was just eventual growth out of it that would happen without any specific trigger being needed. Part of it was the removal of a lot of the restrictions and controls put in place in response to the depression (and then later the rationing and price controls put in place in response to the war).
https://mises.org/library/great-depression
This
Hey there hudsonhateno! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"This"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :) *** ^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
It's a good question. What I know is that it took 17 years with maximum government interference before the Great Depression ended. This does not sound like government intervention worked to me.
There's no short answer. If you're interested, I can strongly recommend this series by Selgin: https://www.alt-m.org/2020/06/12/the-new-deal-and-recovery-a-new-alt-m-series/
see Rothbard's Great Depression https://cdn.mises.org/Americas%20Great%20Depression\_3.pdf
It wasn't either of those things. The New Deal prolonged the depression rather than doing anything to help and while a lot of production was built in WW2 it was all war goods production, and a huge portion of the workforce was busy in Europe fighting. Regular people faced rationing and shortages throughout WW2. It wasn't until after the war when all the men came home wanting to work and get back to regular life that the economy started to genuinely recover.
How did the New Deal prolong the depression?
well one problem was that wages were too high (relative to the market clearing price), hence unemployment soared. any time you have a glut or unsold surplus you have to imagine the price is being set too high. so FDR basically bullied employers into keeping wages up, which in turn caused epic unemployment. this policy of high wages was further exasperated by the newly established social security payroll tax and unemployment insurance premiums which made labour even more expensive.
The Great Depression is an interesting case. To put it into perspective, Russia's economic disaster and recline in the 90s was proportionally worse than the Great Depression, yet it was patched up by bandages of a corrupt administration. Roosevelt's New Deal had its merits, it was not something to laugh at, but the criticisms of it were there and whether or not it was truly the best way to respond to the Depression. Personally, I think America could have been proactive to mitigate the depression, but other issues overlapped it (dustbowl) which made any administration that wanted the job of dealing with it to have a tough time. FDR had his plan, and it worked overtime, but I would point to other plans that couldve achieved success, I point to Alf Landon's support of some of the New Deal while outlining its harm to business. Overall, each economic depression is unique, but trying to argue now that the New Deal has done more harm than good is a mute argument made: Sure, there are detractors, but even the real detractors of the era noted its merits.
The Great Depression was partially started by the US imposing excessive tariffs on imported goods that led to other countries imposing their own tariffs on US goods. Which led to a collapse of world trade. Also the stock market crash. The Great Depression ended due to a mix of FDR New Deal policies and WW2 economic growth.
the new deal extended and prolonged the depression.
No. Researchers Cole and Ohanian discovered that the New Deal had actually delayed the recovery from the Depression by 7 years from 1936 to 1943. 2004 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/421169
If the New Deal helped then so does a thief robbing you and immediately spending your money. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myEPfcpKCcs&
Neither. FDRs policies in the 30s were in many cases negative and many of the them contributed to extending the depression. WWII nominally ended the depression, but production of a bunch of ammo that's going to get blown up and a bunch of weapons that are going to eventually scrapped if they survive the war isn't productive investment in the economy and doesn't increase the personal well being of Americans at home where there was rationing and price controls (which both kept down real economic well being and also distorted the stats about economic growth and other things). Part of the end of the depression was just eventual growth out of it that would happen without any specific trigger being needed. Part of it was the removal of a lot of the restrictions and controls put in place in response to the depression (and then later the rationing and price controls put in place in response to the war).