Comments on: Whaples, Consensus on the Great Depression http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/2009/01/15/whaples-consensus-on-the-great-depression/ Just another Blogs.cfr.org weblog Tue, 02 Jun 2009 07:52:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: How to Get Six Pack Fast http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/2009/01/15/whaples-consensus-on-the-great-depression/#comment-130 How to Get Six Pack Fast Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:24:43 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/?p=78#comment-130 I follow your posts for a long time and must tell that your articles always prove to be of a high value and quality for readers. I follow your posts for a long time and must tell that your articles always prove to be of a high value and quality for readers.

]]> By: Want a bank account? Vote 1 ‘The Government’ : IPA All the time http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/2009/01/15/whaples-consensus-on-the-great-depression/#comment-99 Want a bank account? Vote 1 ‘The Government’ : IPA All the time Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:25:24 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/?p=78#comment-99 [...] Tribune. And I highly recommend Amity Shlaes’s blog, particularly her discussion about the different views that historians and economists have about the success of FDR’s New [...] [...] Tribune. And I highly recommend Amity Shlaes’s blog, particularly her discussion about the different views that historians and economists have about the success of FDR’s New [...]

]]> By: Austin Norman http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/2009/01/15/whaples-consensus-on-the-great-depression/#comment-90 Austin Norman Wed, 11 Mar 2009 05:36:52 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/?p=78#comment-90 Note and thought on my other post above: Khem! Today Citi Financial went up and are supposedly going to make a profit for the first time in months. I got to thinking that their execs are with the CFR so basically they are a CFR company. I have noticed that hardly ever if at all do CFR companies actually go broke no matter how bad things get. Note and thought on my other post above: Khem! Today Citi Financial went up and are supposedly going to make a profit for the first time in months. I got to thinking that their execs are with the CFR so basically they are a CFR company. I have noticed that hardly ever if at all do CFR companies actually go broke no matter how bad things get.

]]> By: Austin Norman http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/2009/01/15/whaples-consensus-on-the-great-depression/#comment-89 Austin Norman Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:35:50 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/?p=78#comment-89 Of course the only thing that got us out of the last depression was WW2 plain and simple. I think we are going into another depression don't you? I mean lets be reasonable here there are plenty of things Obama could have done if he wasn't "owned". They are just printing out more money i.e. the Federal Reserve prints the money, and giving it to huge mullti-national companies and banks. The main problem is the fact that there are too many houses on the market and the ONLY smart thing I have seen if the 8,000 tax credit given for buying a house. The best thing the government could do is give as many incentives as possible to buying and holding onto real estate. My prediction is that unemployment will probably go well over 20% and many of the ultra wealthy people and the banks will buy up all the "true wealth-assets-not money" for pennies on the dollar from their decline. Basically it's all about consolidating the wealth and wiping out the poor middle class. What can we do about it do you think? The only idea I can think of is to buy gold and silver as an investment. The only thing that can keep this from happening in the future though is to abolish the Federal Reserve but in order for that to happen Obama would have to decide to get out of the "brotherhood" so to speak which is very unlikely at this point. The only president to ever break away from being owned was JFK and he isn't with us today for that reason. Peace Of course the only thing that got us out of the last depression was WW2 plain and simple. I think we are going into another depression don’t you? I mean lets be reasonable here there are plenty of things Obama could have done if he wasn’t “owned”. They are just printing out more money i.e. the Federal Reserve prints the money, and giving it to huge mullti-national companies and banks. The main problem is the fact that there are too many houses on the market and the ONLY smart thing I have seen if the 8,000 tax credit given for buying a house. The best thing the government could do is give as many incentives as possible to buying and holding onto real estate. My prediction is that unemployment will probably go well over 20% and many of the ultra wealthy people and the banks will buy up all the “true wealth-assets-not money” for pennies on the dollar from their decline. Basically it’s all about consolidating the wealth and wiping out the poor middle class. What can we do about it do you think? The only idea I can think of is to buy gold and silver as an investment. The only thing that can keep this from happening in the future though is to abolish the Federal Reserve but in order for that to happen Obama would have to decide to get out of the “brotherhood” so to speak which is very unlikely at this point. The only president to ever break away from being owned was JFK and he isn’t with us today for that reason.

Peace

]]> By: Stimulus Package: Tax Cuts Versus Spending - Page 31 - BuckeyePlanet Ohio State Forums http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/2009/01/15/whaples-consensus-on-the-great-depression/#comment-78 Stimulus Package: Tax Cuts Versus Spending - Page 31 - BuckeyePlanet Ohio State Forums Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:41:04 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/?p=78#comment-78 [...] Depression.? Three in four historians disagreed. Economists were split evenly. The consensus just wasn?t there. Bloomberg I guess the really confusing thing about this whole situation for me is people [...] [...] Depression.? Three in four historians disagreed. Economists were split evenly. The consensus just wasn?t there. Bloomberg I guess the really confusing thing about this whole situation for me is people [...]

]]> By: neil wilson http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/2009/01/15/whaples-consensus-on-the-great-depression/#comment-77 neil wilson Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:20:57 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/?p=78#comment-77 I do find your entire premise to be quite funny. Stocks were underpriced in 1929???? I believe this is not true. Do you disagree? The economy was a disaster from 29 through the start of the New Deal. I believe that to be true. Do you disagree? The economy was far better under Roosevelt than it was under Hoover. Again, I believe this to be a fact. Do you disagree? I assume that you think that buying undervalued stocks is a good thing. I assume you think it is better than buying overvalued stocks. We can argue whether the New Deal helped or hurt. I don't think we can argue that the actions taken after 1933 were far better than the actions taken from 1929 through 1933. Again, do you disagree? I do find your entire premise to be quite funny.

Stocks were underpriced in 1929???? I believe this is not true. Do you disagree?

The economy was a disaster from 29 through the start of the New Deal. I believe that to be true. Do you disagree?

The economy was far better under Roosevelt than it was under Hoover. Again, I believe this to be a fact. Do you disagree?

I assume that you think that buying undervalued stocks is a good thing. I assume you think it is better than buying overvalued stocks.

We can argue whether the New Deal helped or hurt. I don’t think we can argue that the actions taken after 1933 were far better than the actions taken from 1929 through 1933. Again, do you disagree?

]]> By: Blue Sun http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/2009/01/15/whaples-consensus-on-the-great-depression/#comment-74 Blue Sun Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:14:00 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/?p=78#comment-74 It is interesting that, with one exception, every year of Roosevelt's New Deal, from 1933 to the U.S. entry into World War II saw the GDP rise. The only exception was in 1937, when FDR listened to the Republican "economic experts" and did what today's free market economists and Republican politicians are calling for - he suspended the New Deal and cut spending. GDP immediately fell for that year. Luckily, FDR learned his lesson in one year and reinstated New Deal spending in 1938, turning the GDP trend up again, where it remained throughout the remaining pre-war years. Unfortunately today's free market economists and Republican politicians STILL haven't learned the lesson of 1937. In the first four years of New Deal spending, FDR saw the unemployment rate fall from 25% to 10% - not bad for a spending policy that many blatant revisionists are now whining was ineffective against the Great Depression and will do nothing but harm to our current spiraling recession and brutal liquidity trap. But then, we all know the old definition of an economist: someone who can explain to you tomorrow why what he predicted yesterday didn't happen today. It is interesting that, with one exception, every year of Roosevelt’s New Deal, from 1933 to the U.S. entry into World War II saw the GDP rise. The only exception was in 1937, when FDR listened to the Republican “economic experts” and did what today’s free market economists and Republican politicians are calling for – he suspended the New Deal and cut spending. GDP immediately fell for that year.

Luckily, FDR learned his lesson in one year and reinstated New Deal spending in 1938, turning the GDP trend up again, where it remained throughout the remaining pre-war years. Unfortunately today’s free market economists and Republican politicians STILL haven’t learned the lesson of 1937.

In the first four years of New Deal spending, FDR saw the unemployment rate fall from 25% to 10% – not bad for a spending policy that many blatant revisionists are now whining was ineffective against the Great Depression and will do nothing but harm to our current spiraling recession and brutal liquidity trap.

But then, we all know the old definition of an economist: someone who can explain to you tomorrow why what he predicted yesterday didn’t happen today.

]]> By: Bob_in_MA http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/2009/01/15/whaples-consensus-on-the-great-depression/#comment-69 Bob_in_MA Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:32:26 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/?p=78#comment-69 That survey seems to leave no room for one likely scenario: that the New Deal had no effect on the length of the Depression. One factor that seems not to be mentioned in current comparisons of now to then, and Obama to Roosevelt, is that almost all assets, stocks, housing, bonds and commodities, had bottomed during the summer of 1932. Stocks had fallen 90%. So the recovery in assets from 1933-1937 was really just an inevitable bounce from an extremely low bottom and probably would have occured no matter who was in the White House. Asset prices are likely to continue to fall for the first 18-24 months of Obama's administration. For the record, I'm a life-long Democrat and I believe things like the CCC and WPA were no-brainers, though much of the rest may be questionable. Having a bunch of unemployed 23-year-olds hanging around bored, with little chance of finding employment seems like a really bad idea. Likewise, I see spending to maintain unemployment benefits, spending by state and local governments and maybe some public works projects as no-brainers now. That survey seems to leave no room for one likely scenario: that the New Deal had no effect on the length of the Depression.

One factor that seems not to be mentioned in current comparisons of now to then, and Obama to Roosevelt, is that almost all assets, stocks, housing, bonds and commodities, had bottomed during the summer of 1932. Stocks had fallen 90%. So the recovery in assets from 1933-1937 was really just an inevitable bounce from an extremely low bottom and probably would have occured no matter who was in the White House.

Asset prices are likely to continue to fall for the first 18-24 months of Obama’s administration.

For the record, I’m a life-long Democrat and I believe things like the CCC and WPA were no-brainers, though much of the rest may be questionable. Having a bunch of unemployed 23-year-olds hanging around bored, with little chance of finding employment seems like a really bad idea.

Likewise, I see spending to maintain unemployment benefits, spending by state and local governments and maybe some public works projects as no-brainers now.

]]> By: Bryant http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/2009/01/15/whaples-consensus-on-the-great-depression/#comment-67 Bryant Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:46:16 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/?p=78#comment-67 Are these the same economists whose blind devotion to free market dogma created the intellectual environment that seeded this crisis? Are those the ones who believed that that FDR extended the depression? Are these the same economists whose blind devotion to free market dogma created the intellectual environment that seeded this crisis? Are those the ones who believed that that FDR extended the depression?

]]> By: Have The Economists Figured Anything Out? | But Then What http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/2009/01/15/whaples-consensus-on-the-great-depression/#comment-66 Have The Economists Figured Anything Out? | But Then What Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:40:53 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/shlaes/?p=78#comment-66 [...] Amity Shales has a new post up that discusses the New Deal and the Great Depression. Actually, she doesn’t really discuss that subject rather she talks about whether or not economists agree on the impact of the New Deal in helping to turn around the economy versus World War ll. At least that is what I think she is talking about because it is all very convoluted and has lots of links that take you to other convoluted arguments that feature economists mostly arguing one side or the other. Apparently, this is a long simmering argument that has been brought back to a boil by the current economic consequences. [...] [...] Amity Shales has a new post up that discusses the New Deal and the Great Depression. Actually, she doesn’t really discuss that subject rather she talks about whether or not economists agree on the impact of the New Deal in helping to turn around the economy versus World War ll. At least that is what I think she is talking about because it is all very convoluted and has lots of links that take you to other convoluted arguments that feature economists mostly arguing one side or the other. Apparently, this is a long simmering argument that has been brought back to a boil by the current economic consequences. [...]

]]>