3 ms·

And if we're really lucky, Trump or Bernie or even Clinton will Smoot-Hawley-tarriff us into another Great Depression.

paulddraper 11y ago
...which depression will then be artificially extended for years by populist New Deal policies. (taxes, massive subsidies, Social Security / basic income)
- RobertoG 11y ago
  It would be nice if you support that claim with some data.
  - paulddraper 11y ago
    Well, the New Deal started in 1933 with unemployment at 25%. Five years later, in 1938 it was still at 19%. Most historians agree that the New Deal was mostly ineffectual at recovery, and that WWII effected real results. (WWII started in 1939, and within two years unemployment was in single digits.) --- That the New Deal was actively harmful (not just ineffectual) in the recovery is a popular opinion, though admittedly not the majority one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Recession_of_1937_and_recovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Recession_of_1937_and... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Harmful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Harmful --- A further opinion is that it wasn't WWII at all, but rather just the ending of the New Deal and excessive spending itself. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/30/the-great-depression-was-ended-by-the-end-of-world-war-ii-not-the-start-of-it/#1fed882e61cb http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/30/the-grea...
- fennecfoxen 11y ago
  Social Security is not a top candidate for extending the last Depression, though it could figure in this one. It's important to note that the real awesome things for prolonging the last Great Depression were genius moves like the Agricultural Adjustment Act (price supports and paying farmers to not-grow crops while burning crops deliberately in the midst of famine, plus laying the foundations for every modern lefty's favorite Big Agribusiness complex) and all the centralized economic planning under the National Recovery Administration (industrial collusion and price fixing on both the local and national levels).
  - paulddraper 11y ago
    True, at the time Social Security just wasn't big enough (yet) to make much of a difference.

...which depression will then be artificially extended for years by populist New Deal policies. (taxes, massive subsidies, Social Security / basic income)

RobertoG 11y ago
It would be nice if you support that claim with some data.
- paulddraper 11y ago
  Well, the New Deal started in 1933 with unemployment at 25%. Five years later, in 1938 it was still at 19%. Most historians agree that the New Deal was mostly ineffectual at recovery, and that WWII effected real results. (WWII started in 1939, and within two years unemployment was in single digits.) --- That the New Deal was actively harmful (not just ineffectual) in the recovery is a popular opinion, though admittedly not the majority one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Recession_of_1937_and_recovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Recession_of_1937_and... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Harmful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Harmful --- A further opinion is that it wasn't WWII at all, but rather just the ending of the New Deal and excessive spending itself. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/30/the-great-depression-was-ended-by-the-end-of-world-war-ii-not-the-start-of-it/#1fed882e61cb http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/30/the-grea...
fennecfoxen 11y ago
Social Security is not a top candidate for extending the last Depression, though it could figure in this one. It's important to note that the real awesome things for prolonging the last Great Depression were genius moves like the Agricultural Adjustment Act (price supports and paying farmers to not-grow crops while burning crops deliberately in the midst of famine, plus laying the foundations for every modern lefty's favorite Big Agribusiness complex) and all the centralized economic planning under the National Recovery Administration (industrial collusion and price fixing on both the local and national levels).
- paulddraper 11y ago
  True, at the time Social Security just wasn't big enough (yet) to make much of a difference.