Re:FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA econ...
by ekianjo on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @08:53PM
(#6932419)
> The key problem with this reasoning is they use a fairly unique measure of unemployment: specifically they don't count those workers who were employed in "New Deal" programs as employed (!).
Well if you create artificial jobs, not deemed necessary by market needs, just for the purpose of stimulating the economy, that assumption can be seen as correct. It depends on your point of view. You could employ people cutting tulips around the city hall, and technically they are employed, yes, but do not produce any value towards economical growth, so it's a net loss compared to them working in a productive job in the industry.
Re:FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA econ...
by nl on Thursday December 19, 2013 @05:35AM
(#6933840)
You could employ people cutting tulips around the city hall, and technically they are employed, yes, but do not produce any value towards economical growth, so it's a net loss compared to them working in a productive job in the industry.
Except it's not a net loss, because those people now have money they can spend.
The key problem with this reasoning is they use a fairly unique measure of unemployment: specifically they don't count those workers who were employed in "New Deal" programs as employed (!).
Here's a good reponse: http://www.salon.com/2009/02/02/the_new_deal_worked/
At a basic level I think I'd agree the New Deal included some bad ideas. But overall the general consensus is that it worked reasonably well in migrating the worst impact of The Depression.