Thread: Re-writing Communism

Originally Posted by Awakening

What about the New Deal? Socialist measures that boosted the economy and workers rights at same time. It's a proof that government is a good tool if used the right way.

Only if you accept the premise that the New Deal actually brought the U.S. economy out of the depression.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Only if you accept the premise that the New Deal actually brought the U.S. economy out of the depression.

What brought the U.S. entirely out of depression was the WW II. But the New Deal made a fair amount of recovery, don't you agree?

Originally Posted by Awakening

What brought the U.S. entirely out of depression was the WW II.

In order for this to be true, one would have to explain how death and destruction plays a role in economic recovery. They would also have to explain why the U.S. economy didn't collapse again after WW2 ended if it was such a driving force behind recovery.

But the New Deal made a fair amount of recovery, don't you agree?

No, for I would wager the New Deal prolonged the depression, and that the dissolution of New Deal policies around the WW2 period allowed real economic recovery to occur.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

In order for this to be true, one would have to explain how death and destruction plays a role in economic recovery. They would also have to explain why the U.S. economy didn't collapse again after WW2 ended if it was such a driving force behind recovery.

The Allies needed supplies of materials for war, and the U.S. sold it to them. It boosted the economy and employment.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

No, for I would wager the New Deal prolonged the depression, and that the dissolution of New Deal policies around the WW2 period allowed real economic recovery to occur.

The economic bubble was the result of too much economic liberalism. One should expect some government intervention on economy after that crash. Why would 100% liberalism do it better?

Originally Posted by Awakening

The economic bubble was the result of too much economic liberalism.

Please, go on.

Originally Posted by Awakening

The Allies needed supplies of materials for war, and the U.S. sold it to them. It boosted the economy and employment.

This doesn't really answer the questions I proposed.

The whole point of an economy is to satisfy the demands of consumers. The sort of jobs "created" for the war did not include creating goods and tending to services desired by the consumer base. Furthermore, such jobs were "created" at the expense of possible job creation in the productive sector of the economy, and when one factors in the drafting of people into the military, the amount of workers available was significantly less. One must also factor in the loss of the workers drafted into the military due to death. And of course, one must factor in the fact that any goods produced for the war, which allegedly lead to increased economic activity and by extension recovery, were destined to be destroyed, and most were.

As Mises said, "War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings."

The economic bubble was the result of too much economic liberalism. One should expect some government intervention on economy after that crash. Why would 100% liberalism do it better?

How was the bubble the result of too much economic liberalism? By liberalism I assume you mean something akin to free markets.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

How was the bubble the result of too much economic liberalism? By liberalism I assume you mean something akin to free markets.

Ours is the only country I can think of that uses liberal to mean more regulation.

Originally Posted by spockman

Ours is the only country I can think of that uses liberal to mean more regulation.

The common claim is that the bubble was due to too little regulation, or that Hoover exacerbated the crash by allegedly not doing anything to ease it. Since economic liberalism can also be taken to mean something akin to free markets, it's probably more likely that's what he meant.