Did FDR's Policies Make the Great Depression Last Longer?

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

Recall that even though BOTH major-read-that-entrenched-and-corrupted parties had dissolved into WALKING DISASTERS, the Libertarians snagged, what, 5%? Less? There's gotta be some distinct reasons for that, and y'all freely insult people who remark on your wobbly platform with fresh eyes.

So on the other hand, the great platforms of the Republican and Democrat parties are why they are doing so well?

The Republicans and Democrats team up to lock *any* other party out, regardless of platform. The media then comes in and relentlessly attacks anyone going against either party's corruption. See Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Did Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have far inferior platforms in comparison to the other candidates? Of course not. Tweaking a platform would do little to increase turnout.

 

[Paulitician]

As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending and the economy went back down again."

Government spending went down after WWII, yet the private economy boomed. Can Paul Krugman explain that? Nope. Admitted so himself.

Some of FDR's policies may have indeed made the Depression last longer, but it wasn't just or all of the New Deal. I think the history is more nuanced than that.

 

[lodge939]

The American economy was WORSE in 1939 than when the market crashed in 1929.

WWII is what saved our bacon.

Yes, but not because WW2 was a "stimulus", as the Keynesians say, but simply because Europe was completely annihilated, and the US had all the gold and all the factories at the end of it.

 

[Paulitician]

Also, why is this article are they only focusing on the Great Depression, when there are other instances of government spending and intervention that failed to recover the economy, like in Japan for instance, which warrants "conservative" and "right-wing" skepticism?

 

[Matt Collins]

​