Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A common thread I've seen repeated again and again is that the Second World War ended the Depression.

Now I know this much to be true. The Depression had ended in all but the worst hit parts of Canada by the time Canada entered the War in 1939.

GDP wise the US had recovered by 1936-1937. Unemployment reminded high but was improving for most of the period from 1932 onward. I know that some modern conservatives want to argue the New Deal was not only unimportant but actually harmful.

I have found economists who believe it to have been poor for the States, but I must say that given economists recent record I am hardly impressed with their ability to predict correctly.

Why is thier so much hate for the programs of the New Deal currently, and what do it's critics here believe it included that was bad?

Neo-liberals will argue that all government intervention in the economy is ineffective and wasteful.

As with all effective political movements, they begin by first attacking the enemy's strongest point, which in this case is the New Deal moving the US out of depression. They attack that idea instead by arguing that engagement in WWII moved the US out of depression. The basic logic that short term deficit spending on public infrastructure doesn't increase economic activity, but short term deficit spending on bombers will.

This is obviously very silly, but there's people out there calling Obama a socialist so what do you expect?

You give new meaning to Thread Necromancy.

sebster wrote:Neo-liberals will argue that all government intervention in the economy is ineffective and wasteful.

As with all effective political movements, they begin by first attacking the enemy's strongest point, which in this case is the New Deal moving the US out of depression. They attack that idea instead by arguing that engagement in WWII moved the US out of depression. The basic logic that short term deficit spending on public infrastructure doesn't increase economic activity, but short term deficit spending on bombers will.

This is obviously very silly, but there's people out there calling Obama a socialist so what do you expect?

That isn't quite right but this is a bait thread and I'm not putting my head in far enough to get hit by the..........

warpcrafter wrote:You give new meaning to Thread Necromancy.

OP was on 2009/11/09 22:42:14
My post was on 2009/11/10 02:33:12

Now, I'm no mathemagician but that looks like there was a tick under five hours between my post and efarrer's, which most people wouldn't call thread necromancy. Unless of course you're giving the term a new definition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:That isn't quite right but this is a bait thread and I'm not putting my head in far enough to get hit by the..........

No, and there's a longer answer that recognises the second fall into recession, but then notes that was the result of cuts to New Deal programs. An even longer answer would address the issues with Keynesianism in a modern context (easily politicised, frequently used to defend fiscal policy that has minimal stimulus effect such as tax cuts, and entirely unsuited to fine control of the economy).

But the conclusion remains the same.

warpcrafter wrote:You give new meaning to Thread Necromancy.

A random point in a long thread that was closed led me to the question.
My background is history. and I find revisionism fascinating.
An equally profound approach to this revisionism is the Catholic scholars attack on Elizabeth the First. This is more immediately interesting because the revision is ongoing.

sebster wrote:Now, I'm no mathemagician but that looks like there was a tick under five hours between my post and efarrer's, which most people wouldn't call thread necromancy. Unless of course you're giving the term a new definition.

He did say you were giving it a new meaning.

Is this because I said that the very modern conservative spin on the new deal is revisionist history in the Obama poll thread? Because if so, I agree with myself, and Sebster has stated it all fairly eloquently for me.

I was referring to the subject, not the actual thread itself. Sigh...

warpcrafter wrote:I was referring to the subject, not the actual thread itself. Sigh...

Did you just sigh in written format on an internet forum?

warpcrafter wrote:I was referring to the subject, not the actual thread itself. Sigh...

How do you commit necromancy by starting a new thread?

I believe you were looking for this warpcrafter.



He meant the subject itself not the thread, you necroed the subject. It was a joke, my comment on it is:
Woooosh!
That's the sound of it going over your head

No offense intended and I apologise in advance if you were offended by that.

Second World War wouldn't have ended the Depression, wars usually create a Depression not solve it.
Now if you research enough, World War 2 was actually caused by a sandwich

n0t_u wrote:I believe you were looking for this warpcrafter.
(snip image)

He meant the subject itself not the thread, you necroed the subject. It was a joke, my comment on it is:
Woooosh!
That's the sound of it going over your head

No offense intended and I apologise in advance if you were offended by that.

No offence taken, though I still have no idea what the necromancy was. Was there a big thread on this recently that I missed? It was mentioned in that locked thread but only briefly...

sebster wrote:

n0t_u wrote:I believe you were looking for this warpcrafter.
(snip image)

He meant the subject itself not the thread, you necroed the subject. It was a joke, my comment on it is:
Woooosh!
That's the sound of it going over your head

No offense intended and I apologise in advance if you were offended by that.

No offence taken, though I still have no idea what the necromancy was. Was there a big thread on this recently that I missed? It was mentioned in that locked thread but only briefly...

I was referring to the fact that the main subject of this thread happened eighty years ago. And yes, I sighed on the internet, out of a sense of completeness. And because I don't know how to spell many of the other noises that escape me.

OK.

..oohhhh....internets !

...

Fear not... it is only the magic of evolution.

n0t_u wrote:I believe you were looking for this warpcrafter.



He meant the subject itself not the thread, you necroed the subject. It was a joke, my comment on it is:
Woooosh!
That's the sound of it going over your head

No offense intended and I apologise in advance if you were offended by that.

Second World War wouldn't have ended the Depression, wars usually create a Depression not solve it.
Now if you research enough, World War 2 was actually caused by a sandwich

Liar! It was caused by a spilled expresso.

warpcrafter wrote:I was referring to the fact that the main subject of this thread happened eighty years ago. And yes, I sighed on the internet, out of a sense of completeness. And because I don't know how to spell many of the other noises that escape me.

Really? So talking about past events qualifies as thread necromancy? You must really hate history class

Anyone ever notice, the New Deal always feels a lot like the Old Deal, about six months in?

After the Ultramarines beat back the Tyranids the once poor peasant's of Ultramar started working in big munitons factories to make the new kit for the chapter, so with their overtime they could all afford to buy cadilacs that jump up and down at the traffic lights, JEWELZ and flashy coloured pimp suits. So it must be true.

And this is how threads which could have been insightful and interesting die.

Frazzled wrote:Anyone ever notice, the New Deal always feels a lot like the Old Deal, about six months in?

So bizarrely appropriate:

The freakiest thing about the whole thing is Seb is shockingly accurate. People are focused on the government spending on 'Their' pet project rather than another.

I keep optimistically thinking that spending on infrastructure (I argue the whole healthcare debacle is infrastructure) is a more reliable method of stimulating the economy (go back to school? Looks like suckering people into the economy to me!) than going to war. We're just too efficient on a global scale to let warfare allow us to deficit spend into a healthy economy while culling our population.

Although looking to lunar colonies might be a neat (if fanciful) way to go.

Replicant in every garage perhaps?

Seriously, i'm just doing this stuff at school and it's SO BORING...sorry man..

r3n3g8b0y wrote:Seriously, i'm just doing this stuff at school and it's SO BORING...sorry man..

So does posting on a thread that was dying = Epic Fail.

This is Dakka off topic. If you don't want to deal with a subject ignore it. It's not hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:I was referring to the fact that the main subject of this thread happened eighty years ago. And yes, I sighed on the internet, out of a sense of completeness. And because I don't know how to spell many of the other noises that escape me.

Really? So talking about past events qualifies as thread necromancy? You must really hate history class

Those who ignore history...

Forget it and post stuff like I did and watch it turn into a train wreck.

History is so old-fashioned.

Kilkrazy wrote:History is so old-fashioned.

Its just not what it used to be.

Also, to the whippersnapper whinging about his school:
GET OF MY LAWN!