This is the crux of all political arguments. The right will say the problem was it was not conservative enough and the left will say it was not liberal enough.
I understand that is the argument between liberal and conservative. But in the case of Japan there are few economists who were studying Japan at the time who will now look back and realize the govt. did the wrong things and didn't do enough.
Agreed - I don't know that Japan provides a lot of useful insight here. It all really depends on if you believe the action is more important or the speed of the action is more important.
The onus of proof should be on those that are pushing this bill. Has government spending on infrastructure and welfare ever gotten any country out of a recession? It's been tried over and over again, usually with the "priming the pump" analogy. Where did it work, and how do we replicate that? Again, I think a recession is a good time to build necessary infrastructure, because it's cheaper to do so. But this is being sold as a stimulus plan, and a lot of necessary projects won't make it because they're not "shovel-ready", and a lot of waste will because it is.
I know you're pushing the new right wing philosophy that it didn't work during the great depression, but that is the minority opinion. so yes, it has worked. now, the problem is in those days the government was in the debt situation, so that's the unknown factor currently.
Sure - it worked to some extent in the Great Depression. It didn't end the depression, because the problem was much deeper, but it dramatically reduced unemployment and strengthened the economy. Then the spending was cut early and things got worse. And then spending went nuts with WW2 and the economy improved again. Government went on a spending spree in the early 1980's as well. According to the article basso posted, many people seem to think it prevent Japan from going into a much worse downward spiral. The problem is that every situation is different, so the comparisons are limited. And since we can't see how much worse or better things would have been in the alternate situation, there's no way to know how much exactly these things helped. There's no way to prove something will or won't work because the world has never gone through this before. And the burden's not really on anyone to prove anything - voters picked their choice a few months ago when they picked the party that believes more in government spending over tax cuts as a stimulative solution.
It's always fascinated me how the New Deal is declared a failure in certain quarters these days. Yet, when I've talked to numerous folks over the years that lived through the era, they have always praised Roosevelt and his policies, without exception, even if they happened to be conservative Republicans. Interesting that the ones who fought through that nightmare, often going so far as to "farm out" children to relatives (even in other states), who had the ability to feed them and give them a roof over their heads (it happened in my own family) single out Roosevelt and the New Deal as making a big difference. It was really, really bad back then. The New Deal, while flawed, did wonders for millions that were desperate.
It absolutely worked in the Great Depression. It was working early on with great improvements, then FDR listened to those who believed govt. should do less, and the Depression flared up and increased once the govt. stimulus stopped. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/01/02/sirota_fdr_depression/
People loved FDR because he was much more of a charmer than Hoover and not as grumpy. He was a feel good president and Hoover was hated.
Well, that and this little nugget: "Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms [while] the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent,"
Regardless of whether you believe that it lessened the effect of the Depression or deepened it, the one thing that the New Deal never did was restart private investment. You can say that it put people to work and built valuable infrastructure, but the private sector portion of the economy decreased from '32 to '39, not just as a fraction, but by absolute magnitude. The pump never got primed. The stated purpose is to get the economy moving and spurring growth.
His leadership did instill people with a can do spirit and that was important. But also because the New Deal helped end the Great Depression is another reason people love him.
BAcked with facts such as the growth numbers during the great depression. Furthermore if you want numbers let those that believe the new deal prolonged the depression provide real numbers that back their claim. Otherwise it's just an opinion as well, and not one backed with facts. from the same article.
The war certainly did, but before the war the auto industry wasn't responsible alone for the 9-10% growth in the economy each year except the years when Roosevelt backed off of his new deal. The auto industry helped, as did the new deal programs.
OK, so government spending did not help end the Depression, but war did? What is war but government spending? Are you making the argument that we need an even bigger stimulus bill? This is the knot cons have tied themselves up in... to negate the New Deal, they must have something that made the difference. That something they always seize upon is WWII. So, they are saying government spending was not successful and the success of later government spending proves it. And your automobile industry point is ridiculous. Without a recovery and massive investments in roads by the government, the auto industry would not have grown as it did.
