Did World War II end the Great Depression and do wars create wealth?

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Depression
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
78 replies · 20K views
You are suggesting causality between the New Deal and unemployment declines without evidence. Prove it

Not without evidence. There is direct evidence since the New Deal policies actually employed people. And second order evidence that those working people spent money for goods and services provided by others, thereby creating more opportunity for employment.

Is this proof?

No. But then proof here is subjective.

There is ongoing debate among economic historians on how to interpret the depression statistics. And there probably always will be.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Skyhunter said:
Not without evidence. There is direct evidence since the New Deal policies actually employed people. And second order evidence that those working people spent money for goods and services provided by others, thereby creating more opportunity for employment.
Yes, no doubt. The question is how many other jobs did the New Deal stifle or kill off.
 
mheslep said:
Yes, no doubt. The question is how many other jobs did the New Deal stifle or kill off.

I give up. How many?
 


Ivan Seeking said:
That all sounds to me more like a transfer of wealth; not a creation of wealth.

While your point is well taken, I am most interested in the notion that wars fought by the US boost the US economy.

I don't have my numbers to back this up Ivan, so I'll ask a question. Didn't Reagan's defense build-up help pull us out of Carter's recession?
 
Gokul43201 said:
No. But involvement in terms of war spending did not see any significant increase (long) before Pearl Harbor. And during that time, it is not true that high levels of unemployment were persisting. Furthermore, unemployment is a lagging indicator of the economy.

76_17.22_17.68_19.05_20.42_24.35_45.58_92.71_109.95_118.18_79.71_57.73_55.08_62.71_70.33&legend=.png


http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...&stack=1&size=m&title=Total Spending&state=US

You can assume anything you wish. I did not say anything of that kind.

Didn't we benefit from providing supplies to OTHER countries BEFORE Pearl Harbor.
 
Skyhunter said:
I give up. How many?
I meant that rhetorically, in that its a question that's difficult to answer, but not to be overlooked when considering government deficit spending to create jobs.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
Right now [Feb 2009] our debt as a percentage of GDP is about 71%.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/USDebt.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

After WWII we hit a peak of about 122%. To be on par with this level of spending we could add another ~ 7 trillion to our debt.

Obviously nobody would loan us $7 trillion...I wonder how long it would take to print $7trillion worth of $20 bills?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ivan Seeking said:
I was just watching the McGlaughlin group, which tends to provide a moderately conservative representation of current events [Pat Buchanan is one lifetime member of the panel]. The biggest complaint about the stimulus package was that it isn't nearly large enough. They even represented this as a primary reason for the negative reaction from Wall Street.

I did have to laugh at Monica Crowley, once again. In regards to Obama's vetting process and his failed nominations, Crowley asked, "What have they been doing for the last three weeks??"

Let's see, I think they just passed the largest spending program in history, in less than thirty days.

Didn't (President hopeful) Pelosi say she'd been working on the package for a long time?
 
Ivan Seeking said:
I hear debate about the cause of the recovery in regards to events, but the point is that even those who claim the New Deal was not successful simply point to an even larger spending program - WWII. So how then can they oppose the recovery package as wasteful spending? There is nothing more wasteful than buidling bombs.

Oh I don't know...BLOWING THEM UP seems more wasteful to me (in many ways).
 
Let's also not forget 1 major difference for us...instead of re-building bombed out cities and searching for food/shelter/medical supplies, our GI's came home and participated in our post war housing boom.

An argument can be made that they MOMENTUM of winning the war took us completely out of the depression.

BTW, did they count the job losses of women who gave up factory jobs after WWII in the unemployment stats?
 
WhoWee said:
Obviously nobody would loan us $7 trillion...I wonder how long it would take to print $7trillion worth of $20 bills?
42.618 years non stop, if BEP only printed $20s :biggrin:
 
mheslep said:
42.618 years non stop, if BEP only printed $20s :biggrin:

Did you do that in your head?

I think we can spend it faster than that...we better either print $100's or write checks.
 
WhoWee said:
Did you do that in your head?
Nah, fingers and toes.
 
WhoWee said:
Didn't we benefit from providing supplies to OTHER countries BEFORE Pearl Harbor.
There may have been some small benefit from that but overall very little money (as a fraction of GDP) went into supplying anyone before PH, and (don't forget that the Export Control Act shut off most trade with Japan). Export receipts increased from about 5% to about 6% in the late '30s and stayed there till '41, when it shot up above 10%.

http://www.freetrade.org/files/images/Exports%20and%20Imports%20as%20a%20share%20of%20GDP,%201900-2006.bmp

http://www.freetrade.org/node/679
 
mheslep said:
I meant that rhetorically, in that its a question that's difficult to answer, but not to be overlooked when considering government deficit spending to create jobs.

I understand. I was just being cheeky :biggrin:
 
Gokul43201 said:
In attachment (when it becomes visible), the first vertical line indicates the approximate timing of the New Deal, and the second roughly marks Pearl Harbor. Unemployment rates were down below 10% - from a high of 25% - before the US declared war on Japan.

The war started in 1939. The decline in the unemployment reflects that almost exactly.
Remember, the US was the "Arsenal of Democracy" before we entered the war.
 
chemisttree said:
The war started in 1939. The decline in the unemployment reflects that almost exactly.

No it does not.

Unemployment declined until 1937. It climbed in 38 and 39, then began declining again in 1940.

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/MeltzerPDFs/maremp93.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
During WWII, most of the men went to war. this opened up many new opportunities for women to get jobs. After the war, when the men returned home, a lot of the women were still able to keep their jobs. This meant more income tax for the government(big surprise there) and thus ended the depression.
 
chemisttree said:
The war started in 1939. The decline in the unemployment reflects that almost exactly.
Actually, unemployment started declining from '34.
Remember, the US was the "Arsenal of Democracy" before we entered the war.
The weapons embargoes were lifted only in Nov 1939, after which Detroit (and others) got into it big time. But, barring 1938, unemployment rates had fallen every year from 1934. The war effort likely sped up the falling unemployment numbers, but even that really took off only after cash and carry was replaced by the lend lease (approximate names) Act.

http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-29.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator: