Top Three Myths about the Great Depression and the New Deal

[@murkythreat]

I was reading through my history book and noticed how the "new deal" did absolutely little to help the economy, when I said this to my teacher he and the class laughed, but he asked for my response, that's what I got out of the book.

[@ZontarDow]

When the free market causes a repression or depression it will not fix it. In my country our government had to force the economy going again after the depression. We never got rid of our regulations on banks (which the US and others did) and what happened? We now have the most stable economy of all 1st world countries and did not need to bail out our banks.

[@IoEstasCedonta]

I'm not convinced regarding the war. War doesn't create wealth, but can't it redistribute it? In this case, from Eurasia and the Pacific Islands, where most of the fighting was, to the US, which suffered almost no damage to infrastructure and got plenty of lucrative deals from the resolution?

[@dudefromtheearth]

Great video! I am loving Learn Liberty! There is hope for us!

[@caller347]

I do disagree with some of this man's points, but then again he is british so he is probably right.

[@markyuto6820]

Another expert again?

[@EngineeringFun]

Makes sense and this guy puts it so concisely. We are living through the same interventionist setup now but people still won't wake up to the truth. It's just like religion. The brain of most people indulges in the idea that there someone "up there" who loves and cares for them. They go through all the crap and extend their suffering because they like this virtual drug.

[@davidbarr707]

Actually WWII did play a huge part in ending the Great Depression in the United States. But not in the way of war build up. The commentator is correct in that. It ended here because every other Industrialized nation had large numbers of their factories destroyed through bombing campaigns. The United States infrastructure remained unscathed.

[@HomelessOnline]

Imagine my surprise! I went to public school and he has just contradicted everything I was taught about the great depression.

[@sebastienholmes548]

Public education: why teach when you can indoctrinate.

[@caderlocke8869]

Where are your citations?

[@JamesR1986]

Somehow I doubt you would be asking for citations if this was Paul Krugman preaching that the great mistake of the depression was that we didn't spend enough. Look, the increase in debt during the Hoover administration, the unemployment rate throughout the depression, the economic situation in the UK(and the rest of the world for that matter) vs. the United States, these things are not state secrets. They're pretty easy to find on this thing called the internet. Use it.

[@gumgumdookuin7963]

It’s not a conspiracy theory! Hoover wanted to help. FDR just took those same ideas and said, “I did this, not mister do nothing over here.” Franklin played as a politican, a good one that like to lie

[@TheNavalAviator]

But if it's other countries' wealth that is destroyed you are at least better off as the only one with an intact industry.

[@JustinColletti]

+John Wayne No, having other people around you be poorer does not make you wealthier. You are in the same place on an absolute, or probably worse, as you will have fewer prosperous people around you to trade with. That is the "zero sum" fallacy talking.

[@kingmatt2563DABEST]

Well not as bad lol.

[@TheNavalAviator]

Justin Colletti It was sarcastic but many believe it.

[@kalien9990]

wealth is not just measured in government revenue but also the income of the population. WW2 lead to the employment of millions in the USA and industrial expansion.

[@LiouTao]

Sure, unemployment went down, but so did the quality of living as well as exploding US debt. US economy did not start booming until post WWII, when the US government drastically cut spending.

[@LiouTao]

Money is useless if you don't have produces to buy. Lack of real wealth production, which are products usable by the consumers would just mean inflated prices of existing products. Low employment rate does not necessarily mean a healthy economy.

[@Gunns57]

***** Did that number include women?

[@ivancampbell8123]

LiouTao How could said that b cutting spending stimulate economic grow tat is a BIG LIE

[@hotant522]

Booms and bust cycles occurs when a central bank inflates the money supply and artificially lowers interest rates. this gives the false impression that there are more savings in the economy then there actually is... The US had to inflate in order to pay for WW1 (inflating is always more politically viable than raising taxes) and in 1920 we had a bust, Harding did very little and that depression ended quickly. During the 1920 the Fed continued to inflate, until the bust in 1929.

[@jsmith3011992]

Okay I'm sorry I just can't ignore that, "Britain's economic depression was over by 1933 and enjoyed rapid economic growth from 1931 onward". Orwells road to Wigan Pier was written in 1936, this book documented his investigations of the bleak living conditions amongst the working class in the north of England during the depression. Also the The Jarrow March which was a protest march against unemployment and extreme poverty suffered in North East England during the Great Depression was in 1936. So please don't try and tell me the depression was over in Britain by 1931, it is a lie sir, not only that it is a vile beastly lie, deliberately ignoring the facts and sufferings of millions in order to fit a skewered economic theory based solely on cherry picking and ignorance...

[@SaulOhio]

Have a look at the data. Yes, unemployment was still bad in 1936 in England. But it was falling quickly and steadily, unlike in America, where it went even higher and came down slower, and even jumped up again around 1936: www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/1918-38-unemployment-rate.png

[@jsmith3011992]

SaulOhio Just looking at that graph still proves that this man is a liar, he said, "Britain's economic depression was over by 1933 and enjoyed rapid economic growth from 1931 onward". Even this rather sketchy looking graph proves him wrong as unemployment remains high all the way to 1937. Also Britain, while it didn't have a new Deal did have very interventionist policies and a very dubious way of counting the unemployed (The millions of homeless tramps were not counted as unemployed). By the mid thirties Germany was rearming at an alarming rate and so do did Britain and France. This government spending helped push the countries out of depression. Also of course the depression was worse in America, thats where it started, obviously its going to be worse there. Finally as proof the New deal was working as you said unemployment was coming down till 1936 it spiked again, well why was that? It was because the government ended subsidies to farms and the WPA during this time and so unemployment immediately jumped up again...

[@SaulOhio]

War spending does NOT cause real economic growth. Real growth means an increase in the economy's ability to serve the needs of consumers. If millions of workers are building bombs, tanks and guns, they aren't making automobiles, growing food, building homes, or any good things that people actually want. Lee Ohanian would disagree with you on that recovery till 1936. FDR and the Lessons of the Depression online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703461504575443402028756986 "The economy did not tank in 1937 because government spending declined. Increases in tax rates, particularly capital income tax rates, and the expansion of unions, were most likely responsible. Unfortunately, these same factors pose a similar threat today. Here are the facts: Real government spending, measured in 1937 dollars, declined by less than 0.7% of GDP between 1936 and 1937, and then rebounded in 1938. It is implausible that such a small and temporary decline reduced real GDP by nearly 3.5% in 1938 or reduced industrial production by about one-third. Enlarge Image Associated Press But in 1936, the Roosevelt administration pushed through a tax on corporate profits that were not distributed to shareholders. The sliding scale tax began at 7% if a company retained 1% of its net income, and went to 27% if a company retained 70% of net income. This tax significantly raised the cost of investment, as most investment is financed with a corporation's own retained earnings. The tax rate on dividends also rose to 15.98% in 1932 from 10.14% in 1929, and then doubled again by 1936. Research conducted last year by Ellen McGratten of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis suggests that these increases in capital income taxation can account for much of the 26% decline in business fixed investment that occurred in 1937-1938."

[@jsmith3011992]

SaulOhio Im afraid thats simply not true, war spending has been used, and still is used as a major spur to economic growth in the US for the last 70 years; thats why military spending in the US is still so high despite the cold war being over for 20 years… I think you'll find that the problem during the great depression, as it is now during the great Recession, is not that taxes were/are too high or that (I can't actually believe you said this but) that Unions are too powerful (Union's by the way are one of the few democratic and wage protecting institutions in the economy) but that the demand for goods collapsed. I.e the US was producing far more than it had need for and so millions were left unemployed. Now the war effort put these people to work, just because a factory isnt producing cars doesn't mean its not paying its thousands of workers a wage. A wage they then spent on consumer products like cars, food, houses etc Also people seem to not understand that an Army needs more than tanks and guns to survive. The army needed everything from shoes, containers, buttons, tons of food, machine parts, ships, cars, cigarets, paper, basically everything and so the economy boomed selling it to them. Also think of all the soldiers employed by the war effort spending their wages on consumer products… We can argue back and forth over what caused the relapse in unemployment in 1936-37, as economists have done for years but the fact remains what got the US and the rest of the world out of the great Depression was not a lowering of taxes, or union busting or whatever. It was a huge public works program i.e WW2 Capitalism was disproved on the fields of Flanders when it became obvious that a economy run with at least some state guidance would create a far more powerful country than any capitalist one pushing and pulling in all directions. The British and Americans learnt this early in the war and immediately began creating a state run war economy; after the war they realised it would be stupid to go back to the stagnation and poverty of the 30s so they didn't. And so the golden age of the western economies began, wages rose for everyone during the 50-60 unlike now were they been stagnating since the 70s after all the union busting and deregulation. Taxes were very high during the 50s-60s yet the economies of the west boomed, and yes I know most US competitors were destroyed by the war but so was their ability to buy US goods but the economy still boomed. Military spending has been used as a control factor in the economy for a very long time, it acts as a way for the govt to spend billions in the economy without anyone questioning it or calling it "corporate welfare". Think of all he amazing technological innovations that have come out of the public sector, not the private in the last century, that have revolutionised the world and made trillions of dollars for the world economy. Think computers, lasers, the internet and all the trillions its generated, rockets and space flight and the technology that has come from that, satellites, jet panes, heavy machinery, robotics, high tech medical equipment, mobile phones, fibre optics, the list goes on and on… All these were developed with public money under the military system and not by some fedora wearing private entrepreneur with but a buck to his name and an idea, as the myth goes. It can be difficult to accept the huge role the state plays in the economy but the fact is that its there, and its from there that almost all the major technological wonders of our age have come from. Its whats called an unpleasant fact...

[@SaulOhio]

Odysseus Ulysses Yes, governments have USED the excuse that war spending is good for the economy, but that doesn't mean its true. Medieval kings used the excuse of the divine right of kings. Does that mean its true? The government spending didn't cause the engineers and scientists that created those new inventions to simply pop into existence. If they had been left in the private sector, their intelligence and creativity could have gone DIRECTLY to producing goods and services that people actually need, instead of first diverting that creativity and intelligence to finding bigger and better ways to kill people. We would be better off. Certainly Thomas Edison didn't need that government war spending to motivate or enable him and the people working with him at Menlo Park to invent a huge array of new products. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs weren't producing goods for the military. The military spending SLOWS DOWN the process by first using that creative energy to produce new ways of killing, THEN it gets applied to consumer goods. Better to do it more directly, bypassing the killing inventions.

[@jlhill17]

Economic growth is created primarily by businesses, especially small businesses, not by taxpayers. If businesses thrive, more people get jobs. The New Deal did create jobs, but was not helpful for creating more jobs in the long run. WWII did make our industry boom, but a large portion of what was produced went to war and was destroyed. Destroyed products don't provide wealth.

[@nickspraker]

@AroundSun Yes, the soldiers weren't spending it and the families back home were spending less but all but about 3% had a job and had income so when the war was over and the soldiers came home they had money to spend and this caused a real boom to the economy

[@rB777ftw]

That's not true. The economy began expanding as soon as the New Deal was implemented. The economy went into recession again in 1937 because FDR cut back on some of those programs.

[@postoergopostum]

Wealthy people are not wealthy because of good luck and hard work, as they like to claim. They are wealthy, because they are greedy.

[@fanadfilms]

What ended the Great Depression, almost as in the Depression of 1920, was FDR died and Wilson had a stroke. The Congress, sans FDR's influence, stopped the profligate spending. Truman submitted FDR's budget, and the Congress voted NO. in 1920, Harding reduced spending and taxes. Coolidge went even further. It was Hoover's interventionism that caused the Crash of 29 and FDR's exponentially larger interventionism that created the Great Depression.

[@adulby]

Great Video, Great Information, but i have to ask....why are you in a movie theater?

[@TOASTEngineer]

Mmh. I do wish they cited some sources every now and then.

[@dmcarefuldriver]

I'm not a libertarian, but this is historically accurate. The New Deal helped to pave the way for the flourishing 50s and 60s, but did not cure the depression in the 30s. World War II put a lot of people back to work, but real economic growth didn't occur until the baby boom after the war.

[@SaulOhio]

I disagree that the New Deal helped pave the way for the 50's and 60's. By then, most of the New Deal had been repealed or abandoned. There is nothing about it that promotes economic growth.

[@foreverdream1]

If the war did not end the Great Depression, what did?

[@boebeauchamp4883]

"wars don't create wealth, they destroy it"??? It certainly creates wealth for the arms and munitions manufacturers! He lost me from the get go

[@tylerglass3220]

What percent of the population owns arms factories?

[@boebeauchamp4883]

I would venture to say a very small percentage. Let's just say that the "arms manufacturers" don't live next door to my appartment. ;)

[@Evnfurtherbeyond]

no wealth is created, it's just transferred from tax payers, those who actually create wealth, to the munitions manufacturers.

[@trygvb]

Do you even know what wealth is? Creating a missile for $1 million and then using it to blow up a building does not create wealth. Transferring money does not create wealth.

[@ufodeath]

DanO Workers producing actually useful goods and services produce wealth. The product of the workers labor then gets appropriated by the capitalist thus creating an inefficient economy where the product of the economy cannot be bought fully from those that produced it. We need an economy that works in favor for the workers. So we must therefore put the workers in charge of the economy via Worker cooperatives.

[@epetro10]

I wish he had gotten more specific or referenced actually data or research. Even some links in the description would have helped. I can't just take his word for it....

[@TheAlibabatree]

"One must learn by doing the thing, for though you think you know it, you have no certainty until you try." -Aristotle. The basic idea is that you cannot understand something until you have experienced it for yourself.

[@DaytonaRoadster]

I have a Masters in History...this 'Doctor' knows less about history than your entry level freshman, he's obviously pimping his book..supported by the Heritage Foundation now doubt

[@DriverRob73]

You are right in that new factories were built and industrial production was increased across the board for the war. However, all the products of those times were expended in war and did not make the lives of the citizens better during the war. Indeed, not only could you not get a new car, or toaster, or whatever, but almost every family lost a loved one. Some half million Americans died or were maimed for life. So the war economy operated mainly to benefit the owners of industry who profited.

[@20thcenturyfilmdocs]

@TheCommonMan101 Also, I knew full well that Hoover wasn't truly Laissez-Faire leader (duh, Hoover Dam). The problem was that he was exercising FINANCIAL levers to try to kick-start the economy, when in fact what folks needed were JOBS. WPA and the Alphabet soup of programs put a lot of folks to work, and you can STILL see the results of their work at major colleges and schools, older buildings, etc. Hoover did not do that, to his peril.

[@MrJigssaw1989]

@DrNikol2007 laissez faire is not natural ? Protection of property ?ok so you want to tell me that absent of goverment (lets say goverment breaks down) people would not protect their property by themselves (or hire someone to do it) ?

[@mattlm64]

Increasing production while all other variables remain the same doesn't increase wages. Instead it reduces prices of the producer because of greater supply.

[@IMMAEDEDDNEDDY]

@Lengo67 The reason it was short lived is because we spent even more money of shit such as bombs, sending troops to 'stop communism', all that good stuff

[@NOLAMarathon2010]

My friends, over a short time horizon, wars can only destroy. They take objects that have value and convert them into objects with no value. The net change is loss of value. A war which establishes liberty, however, can play a role in the creation of wealth over long time horizons. Conversion from tyranny to liberty can bring about secure property rights, enforcement of contracts, and the rule of law, necessary conditions for growth and prosperity. The context is the time horizon.

[@gaseti]

@firebadger101 I guess it depends on what the definition of wealth is. Surely most would consider the Harrimans, Carnegies, Rothchilds, Bushes, Gates, etc as extremely wealthy. Much of the old money families got their wealth because of the backing of the money centered banks and therefore their ability receive major gov't contracts, to sell shares & bonds to build their companies. Major wars or depressions cause consolidation of companies but an increase in wealth for the few that remain.

[@Wesley-ri7ok]

Hoover was a laissez-faire president. He didn't step in during the great depression and allowed a number of banks and other American companies to fail putting a number of Americans out of work. The new deal and its programs slowed the growth of the great depression by putting more Americans into work at the cost of the government, this was to get things moving again. When we entered WWII our economy became centralized which boosted our military and economic production. It was what war let us do.

[@VIKDR1]

So you are saying one group has wealth, so we must blame them for what happens to another group? These groups are only related in your head. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Local research showed 40% had health insurance. They broke up, and didn't have funds for an apartment. A large number have mental issues, including addiction. This has nothing to do with wealth. I worked with a homeless guy who kept asking to take his hours. How should I feel? BTW I saw a panhandler make $18 in 1/2 hour.

[@VIKDR1]

As I said, it's more complex then I stated. (500 char limit.) And expected nit picking. I didn't make the bomb, but it's destroyed the same. All funds used for any government spending are removed from the economy first, or borrowed, or inflated. (Printed.) Money spent by a government doesn't add to an economy. It can seem like it, similar to getting another credit card seems better until the payments come due. Also I raised my children not to be envious of what others have.

[@mussman717word]

First of all, it's most likely YOU didn't make the bomb. You hired workers to do it for you, providing new jobs and provoking them to spend more at home, investing in perhaps a new car or whatever, therefore creating jobs in the auto industry, etc. It's the chain of supply and demand. Not only that, but when you define a nation's "real wealth," I get upset on the grounds that most of it is concentrated among a small group of people; the median isn't anywhere near the mean, in other words.

[@VIKDR1]

Britain got out of the recession by dropping the gold standard. The American Depression flowed into Britain, and the result was gold was flowing out of Britain, into America. The average recession in America, since 1919 has been 13 months. The average expansion is over 60. There are business cycles, but it doesn't magically follow a 20 year plan like clockwork. It's way more complex then that, and is heavily influenced by government interaction, and (usually) bad monetary policy.

[@MrSaber152]

with our economic rivels(europe) all jacked up. it left the market open to the usa to clean house making the 1950s some of te best ecnimic times the usa had ever seen. all that begai to fade as europe got them self back in the game come the 1970s with it being a fair playing feild again the market in the usa started to fall. as everyone else wa now getting thier piece of the pie

[@JamesR1986]

And you underestimate the importance of good grammar. Not to mention the fact that in order for the government to spend money, they have to take it from someone first. Furthermore, government spending influence is always influenced by touchy feely ideas that don't actually work (see windmills and six figure teacher salaries) and well connected wealthy constituents (see Boeher's contract for an out of date engine the Pentagon doesn't even want)

[@torpedodropkick59]

when a war breaks out do not expect McDonalds or Apple to help you defend your home or create wealth they will cry poor..Govt spending on defence through fair taxation from these corporations andworkers is essential and helps lots of industries, mining , transport, textiles, oil, ..war has alwats created WEALTH, thats why USA got involved late to make money. esp, 1917,and 1941,

[@Wolfeson28]

Common sense tells us that war stimulates the economy for two reasons. First, while war leads to the destruction of materiel, that means more has to be produced to replace it. That means more jobs are required for people to build all of that, and produce the necessary raw materials. Second, during a total war, rationing reduces supply, which leads to massive pent-up demand. That demand is then released when the war ends and more civilian products become available again, sustaining the growth.

[@Wolfeson28]

Finally, the whole thing about "if you strip out the military production, the economy is just as bad" is laughably bad. First, the basic concept of that statement is "well, if you strip out the data that shows an effect, you can see there's no effect." Bad statistics 101. Second, of course non-military economic production will look bad DURING A WAR. A substantial portion of the population is oversees fighting, and everyone else is dealing with rationing so resources can support the war. Read on

[@Wolfeson28]

The argument starting at 1:23 about WW2 is simply and utterly wrong. First of all, the whole concept of "wealth creation" is a fallacy. Wealth is not "created", the strength of an economy is the movement of wealth as people make purchases. Second, by what definition is war production not "real" wealth? Were the jobs opened up by the war industries any less "real" than any other job? Were the checks from those jobs any less "real" in terms of those workers' ability to feed their families? Read on

[@acruiox]

or factory made goods because the factories were being put to use making weapons ,tanks and Supplies for the army and also due to Rationing system (Marker stockings for example) but once WW2 was over and we were transitioning to a Peacetime economy 45-47 People could return home and start Buying goods... Companies seeing this increased consumer demand would use the payments from the US military for war equipment to expand their factories and business buying more materials therefore (continued)

[@acruiox]

and then the Economy went into a 2nd depression "The Roosevelt Depression" not because of the New deal but because of Fiscally hawkish fears of the deficit 2nd fact WW2 did end the depression because in 1942-45 unemployment was down to roughly 1% which mean't that workers and Companies in the united states were actually working compared to 8% in 1940 which added to the fact mean't they actually had money to *Spend* and buy Goods but because of the war they had no access to consumer goods ..cont

[@BramClaes]

It was also a form of wealth in the sense that gazillions of bombers and tanks needed to be made, thus leading to more employment, creating more wealth for workers, leading to more consumption etc. etc. And indeed this guy talks like the economy didn't recover at all during Roosevelts first years of presidency, which it actually did! However, there was a new recession in 1937, (some believe because Roosevelt's policy acted against the advice of Keynes)

[@TheYamsinacan]

I've been trying to prove to a friend that socialist policies are not helpful. I wanted to use this as an example, so I wanted to do more research in how Britain tackled the problem. Britain failed because they actually cut unemployment benefits by 10% Britain reworked their unemployment benefit system to give to those in need, rather than giving money based one a person's contribution to the economy. However North and Wales remained poor throughout the 1930s, and relied on public works.

[@Burns12009]

(Part2) It's also misleading to say with the effects of the war stripped out...... no growth was created to after the war. He does fail to realize that most things were rationed and almost all output went into producing goods for the war. When the war was over, previous debts were mostly paid off due to output and prices rising at about 10% since 1934, and most people had lots of savings from the war because most things were rationed.

[@Burns12009]

Blatant lies here in this video. The unemployment in 1932 was 24%. Roosevelt's first year in office unemployment stayed about the same, by 1937 unemployment had fell to 14%. This year the government decided to start balancing the budget as a result unemployment rose to 18%. From then to 1941 unemployment fell to 9%.. Also Military production is wealth, after all you can accumulate airplanes etc..... More goods were produced, thus resulting in productivity to rise. (part1)

[@postoergopostum]

In the context of a 500 chr$ linit some subtlety and nuance is lost. Human nature is not either greedy or not greedy, we all experience desire. The interesting questions, to me elucidate our preparedness to allow others to pay to satisfy our desires. Yes my post was simplistic rhetoric. Is it even possible for a corporation to demonstrate altruism? I think there is value in the conversation. Would you kill, sell a daughter, prostitute yourself for wealth? Some do.

[@UmTheMuse]

I wish there were more video responses to go into more depth about each of these. I'm particularly interested in myth #3. Granted, bombs and guns are made to destroy wealth. But in this case, it was other people's wealth. So, how and in what ways can you account for war production? I suspect that this man is wrong in the sense that the US's potential for production increased due to 1. more workers (women) 2. more capital investment (? Don't know for sure) and 3. improving technology

[@zelda64rules]

Plus, as the Delegates don't count until they vote at the RNC Convention in Tampa, as us "Paulbots" keep saying, there is still a possibility. As far as I've seen, if we do vote for a major party candidate should Ron Paul lose, well: "Stick with the Devil you know." Also, there are people who are fighting to prove that all Delegates are Unbound, meaning they can vote for any candidate. Rick Santorum has even stated that if it's a success, he's coming back into the race, even though he won't win.

[@twoking10]

(part2of4)When the libertarians get a significant percentage (even 5%), and do it consistently, they will make a change without winning an election. Someone is going to want that 5%. That being said, I am still sticking with Romney. This thing with Obama is getting personal with me. Goverment mandates designed to influence consumer behavior. Geez. I mean, this stuff is dangerous.

[@blazerider6]

He tried to convince business leaders to cooperate for recovery, and failed. He spent hardly any money to attempt to put people to work, believing in the superimportance of a balanced budget and the capacity of the private sector to fix itself. The money he did allocate with the RFC was largely unspent because of strict implementation procedures (only for toll roads, public housing, and large banking corporations). His refusal to do any significant interference allowed the Depression to worsen.

[@Bluehero345]

They don't correlate in a meaningful way (one which would allow you to prove causation) though.By your logic, Spain (which is around a whopping 25% unemployment) should have a massive GDP loss, but when we look at the numbers we see that it has really been bouncing around +/- .3% since 2010, hitting a record low of -1.6% in 2008. Those numbers are nothing like as bad as the numbers you're posting here, and yet our unemployment is much lower than their's.

[@Bluehero345]

Um, no. The lowest GDP growth got was the 2009 3rd quarter analysis which posted a rate of -3.5%, but that quickly moved back up to 3% in the 1st quarter of 2010. It was right about 0 in 08, and 2% growth in 07. unemployment has been going down, but hardly in relation to GDP growth, which shrank from 2010 to 2011(3% to 1.5%), and has remained at around an 8% figure for the last several month despite (mostly) good economic news.

[@Bluehero345]

While your 25% figure is correct for overall unemployment, many economists/historians will use an unemployment figure which does not include the agricultural sector, as there were many Americans who were subsistence farmers at the time of the Depression. The number I refer to is that adjusted number. And while a Depression does have to do with GDP growth primarily, unemployment is still a concern, and can serve to indicate that, despite growth improving, the economy still is not healthy.

[@Bluehero345]

Hoover was NOT a laissez-faire capitalist, he was a Progressive. Hoover was actually considered as a candidate for the Democrat Presidential nomination (with FDR as his VP) before he threw in with the Republican ticket under Harding and Coolidge. In fact, many of FDR's aides and secretary's were quoted as having said that (paraphrasing) "much of the New Deal was little more than a renewal and expansion of Hoover's existing policies." You ask for proof? Prove he WAS a capitalist. I'll wait.

[@DanH454]

You MUST UNDERSTAND WHY... I've read about the possibility-probability of this happening... Now we see it... When a certain segment of society feels cheated they may actually resort to believing that "Socialism is GOOD!" AND we need as much Socialism as possible!! Sad, but True that this wacky type of thinking CAN occur. But again, instead of getting pissed off about this, you MUST ASK WHY?? Again, it goes to the issue of many people being misinformed (about true capitalism for example).

[@simmang47]

Right law serves a purpose to create a market that is fair. That market is then regulated though so it is not free hence its not a free market because government has to interfer. It has to because people are greedy and there have to be rules that are commonly accepted and used to create a stable controlled market that allows growth and punishes crime. Really the free market would exist if cruelty did not exist but man does as he does.

[@jakethewoz]

This channel needs a lot of work before it convinces real skeptics of anything (like me). First, PLEASE represent the other side in some way. What do opponents of your way of thinking say? You do a great job of looking and sounding intelligent, but it's suspicious; instead of coming off as reasonable and well-measured, it comes across as authoritarian. You could be saying anything in that suit and in that tone of voice, and people will mistake it for sound advice. See car sales.

[@silljos1]

@visini14 I agree. However there are many that would argue that although the New Deal helped tremendously, it could not do enough because of the severity of the crisis. Don't get me wrong, I love the New Deal and the policies that FDR implemented. And of course WWII helped as well, the war turned America into the worlds largest creditor, and with our production and manufacturing intact due our advantageous geographic location, much of Europe was in ashes, completely devastated.

[@crazypants88]

@danieldefenseM4 No it's completely apt, no one demanded the war machines except the state, and since every cent the state is not earned but taken from it's citizen's it's blatantly commiting the broken window fallacy. Yes the state spent the tax money on x, that doesn't mean that that money wouldn't have spent, it would have, only on stuff people actually wanted. Also digging ditches DOE produce ditches, so by your logic it would be good for the economy.

[@silljos1]

So the new deal didn't end the depression, but it provided workers and the unemployed with safety nets. The soviet union wasn't affected by the economic depression of the rest of Europe and America because they were not a victim of the problem the market created. If the new deal didn't end the great depression (which it didn't fully BUT it helped), and the war didn't end the great depression, then please tell me WTF ended the great depression, cause that wasn't mentioned in this video.

[@danieldefenseM4]

@WalterLiddy Sure, the goverment was paying for the war with tax dollars. These tax dollars were then used to pay private companies, who in turn paid them back to the people. The companies no longer recieved goverment money after the war, but the affects of boosting them along with new companies created during the war to provide jobs and income. The "digging ditches" analogy does not fit with the circumstances at all. Digging ditches doesn't create new industries and jobs that flourish later.

[@danieldefenseM4]

@WalterLiddy Once again, I will try to make it clear. The war's need for goods and services required many more jobs than already existed. The government created contracts with industries and companies to produce goods for the war. This employed hundreds of thousands of unemployed people, giving them income they didn't have. This boosted or created new PRIVATE industries they worked for, which carried into after the war. These industries also had room for jobs for returning vets.

[@crazypants88]

@danieldefenseM4 If the jobs you give these people produce nothing, than you're not helping anyone. I mean we could cut all unemployment today if we give everyone a job running in circles or whatever, but since nothing is being produced than nothing is gained. 2 and 3 are just straight up broken window fallacy. Without the state taking those funds private individuals would have spent them on stuff they valued, it wouldn't have just disapeared if the state didn't spend it.

[@danieldefenseM4]

@worldofdraculas So you think that WWII had NOTHING to do with the depression's recovery? That all the new jobs created didn't affect anything? WWII created new or boosted existing market sectors and industries (such as the aerospace industry) that continued after the war. This created jobs during the war that lasted far past the war. Sure the depression was "improving" by 1940, but it may not have ended when it did was it not for WWII. It could have been 1958 instead of 1948.

[@danieldefenseM4]

This doesn't change the fact that WWII put MILLIONS of Americans to work in jobs they did not previously have. Did it technically "end" the economic depression? No, other things contributed as well but it sure as hell did give jobs to people who never had them, boosting the economy from their spending. Its absolutely arrogant to believe that WWII was a just a coincidence in ending the Great Depression.

[@helios5868]

1. Hoover did intervene in the economy I grant that point. ...but... 2. Britain was less severely affected to begin with and remained partially depressed until the Second World War 3. The end of the great depression is not measured by "Real wealth creation" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) but by how able people are to take care of themselves. The war created jobs, putting money in people's pockets which they spent. THIS STUFF ISN'T SIMPLE. STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT SOUND THAT WAY.

[@ScottCorbitt]

@cciemail There was once a pamphlet entitled, "100 physicists against Einstein". Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it right. I happen to believe the evidence, not the words of boneheaded professors who 70 years ago would have been publishing books about the benefits of Communism (which many professors back then did). The good historians I define as the one who's theories fit the evidence, not the ones who publish the most books.

[@halloranedward]

@XxzeppelinxX The public schools have been working over time to blur the definitions of these terms to the point that every single complaint about capitalism by the occupiers is an example of socialism,(bailouts subsidies, tax incentives, etc.) not one of them can tell you what the words "socialism" or "capitalism"mean, if you really want some fun, ask them what the name of the economic system where the government sets prices, but property may be owned. it's hilarious.

[@trueconservatie33]

@samoanpunch well I agree with you that all those financial instruments were very dangerous, but they were created because banks were encouraged Greenspan's low interest rate policy. Both parties continued the federal reserve's policies of easy money and bailing out financial institutions, therefore made the situation worse. the solution is high interest rates, no more bailouts, and get rid of deposit banking. You should read Rothbard's books if you want

[@trueconservatie33]

@GermansMustDie Well I agree with you it ended unemployment rate, but the domestic purchasing power of our citizen were very weak. I don't think I want go to war to avoid being unemployed lol. After ww2 southern democrats and republicans cut spending dramatically and end of war freed up a lot of resources, we had the robust economy for the next decade. A lot of Keynesian economists were actually we should go to war again to avoid the great depression

[@samoanpunch]

@canaryman69 Facts is until you learn what CDOs are & how the deregulation of that market lead to this economic crash, then you will never see how huge of an impact deregulation of that single market had on the world. Here's my proof, if you disagree these then back it with facts, not "I-think" And if you can’t take the time to educate yourself then don’t bother debating what you don’t know.

[@samoanpunch]

@canaryman69 lol, I still can't get over that. Commie? Really? Because I've the opportunity for certain pieces of information to cross in front of me, which have formed a conclusion different than your (several years ago they weren't different at all) I'm a commie? To me a commie is someone who oppresses any different way of thinking or facts that would create such differences from what they say... huh.. calling me commie makes you sound like one!

[@samoanpunch]

@canaryman69 lol how'd I know you wouldn't take the challenge? And to top it off insulting with the old "Commie" way out. As I stated in the first response, capitalism is a great concept. As I stated today, I don't have an answer to creating pure capitalism, but I would agree 100% less gov control, unfortunately our gov is controlled by capitalist. It's a fact, you can argue it's not but that's just unfortunate for you. Cheers -100% Entrepreneur

[@samoanpunch]

@canaryman69 you know.. from you original response I already knew this was your train of thought but I decided to avoid saying it & gave you the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to argue with you any more because I already know you don't know what CDOs are. And because of that you also don't know how your entire argument is incorrect. BTW, the last 3 post was a quote by Einstein, which happens to explain what has deepened down to a tee.

[@samoanpunch]

Part 2 organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing Continued…

[@samoanpunch]

Reality: "Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively ...checked even by a democratically Continued…

[@samoanpunch]

@canaryman69 @canaryman69 I don't have a solution cept for more separation of government & business but as we’ve seen laws/regulations are changed at will when it suites the greedy capitalist. Less government may help capitalist but it certainly doesn't help the people. This depression is a perfect example of how deregulation allowed capitalist to be greedy at the expense of tens of millions of homes, jobs, retirements & businesses. Greed can hurt, to say otherwise is naïve or a lie

[@samoanpunch]

@canaryman69 No I am not saying that. I am saying they are part of the problem not the only problem. I am saying that greed is part of the capitalistic equation which you & this video are dismissing. Greed is real & can be harmful. Centuries of evidence prove it, including this depression & both wars we are currently engaged in. True, greed may not measurable or illegal but to state that pure capitalism is possible is to dream, because reality has proven it impossible.

[@trueconservatie33]

@AaronTheBaron18 the funny thing is was left wing economist were arguing we should get into war to stop a depression from happening again. All the Keynesian were saying how end of ww2 will put America back into depression. but because of republicans and southern democrats pushed huge spending cuts and moderate tax cut, we had a robust economy in the next decade, then until eisenhower's big federal interstate stimulus was put into effect

[@shajuggalo77]

@branhoff What you are talking about is giving my life over to the stock market witch means the free market and thats fucking crazy because you now what would happen if the stock market crashed and that means we would lose everything we have ever worked for dude and when the market crashes that means banks get shut down and there is no way of getting money or anything so we need a safety net like the govt to run it because the market not always the best way.

[@shajuggalo77]

@branhoff Ok listen to me you can't keep every dim on your money because you need to help the country pay for healthcare.teachers,cops and you need to pay for our troops who help keep us safe and you want to build 21 century houses,cars,trains and you think all this shit is free!!!! and thats why i say you are greedy because you don't want help the country its just all about you and your money and taxes go pay for all this stuff so please it's not all about you!

[@shajuggalo77]

Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over; to those who are under 65 and are permanently physically disabled or who have a congenital physical disability; or to those who meet other special criteria. Medicare in the United States somewhat resembles a single-payer health care system, but is not. Before Medicare, only 51% of people aged 65 and older had health care coverage.

[@shajuggalo77]

@branhoff ok the reason you pay into social security as your young is to make sure you have a safety net when you get old because we both know when you get old you get sick and as you get older say like 70 you go to see the doctor more and more and alot people by age 70 are not working so how are you going to plan to pay for all of your medical bills? because you think its cheap to do surgery's on people and most cost like 10 to 50 thousands dollars and how i get this money if im not working?

[@shajuggalo77]

I was reading your post about the The United States Department of Veterans Affairs being run by the states wtf!!! ok you better google that quick and its right there in big blue letters lol and guess what is says?The United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is a government-run military veteran benefit system with Cabinet-level status. It is the United States ... and yes i just copied and pasted this for you and just google it man so please get your facts right.

[@branhoff]

@shajuggalo77 Health care was not a government institution until recently and soon it will not be at all. Also, police officers and firefighters for the public far predated any socialistic notion period so they do not represent socialism at all. The modern fire fighting system was originated by proposals laid out by Benjamin Franklin who would never have ever wanted centralized control of government. in fact, he fought against it... literally

[@shajuggalo77]

@Lengo67 First off i have no boss and I own my own company and guess what were you think i got the loan to start my company? well lets see the govt lol and most of my friends are greedy and they laugh at the people who are poor but im not like that because i understand that i have one life in this world and i have to do everything in my power to see that the people who work for me are taken care of and if that means paying more in taxes or selling off some of the gold i have than so be it!!

[@reginaDexant]

@Lengo67 Life is not fair. Where do you get your income? Not industry? Someone had to produce the goods on your back and from which you make money or if not money something equal to it like goods, trades, food, clothes, shelter, etc. etc. We need free enterprise. I have found that most people who want controlling regulations, want everyone but themselves controlled. DO YOU THINK YOU NEED MORE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL US?!? Control yourself or let me control you and your money and what you do. OK?

[@351cleavland]

He is a well-spoken man. However, He doesn't offer any examples to back up his interpretations. What political interventions during the depression does he refer? How did those interventions affect the nation-according to data? What was the pre and post condition of each intervention. I don't know if his interpretation is correct or not. I am the king of the world!!!-that is a claim-just because I said it does not make it true. Nor is it false. If I offer evidence then a judgment can be made.

[@shajuggalo77]

All one has to do is look at the people who lined the railroad tracks after fdr died and you can see that the people really felt they lost a great president so never listen to people who are bought and paid for by the rich like the guy is in this video and mr historian if you want to make a time machine and go back to the railroad tracks and tell all those people that you know fdr really was'it the one who helped you out in the great depression than lets see if you make it back in one peace:)

[@devourerofbabies]

So I'm looking at this channel and I'm thinking "oh boy, another Libertarian shill channel". But then I think, hey, maybe this time they'll have something to say. Maybe I should listen. Just because the last 4,000 libertarian arguments I heard have been worthless doesn't mean they all are, right? So I watch this video and I'm utterly unsurprised to find that it's nothing but bare assertions masquerading as economics, just like everything else I've ever heard from libertarians.

[@jimmyhatt4]

@FrancesKay1 Actually my business professor told us that when you raise taxes rich people hire so they don't have to pay the tax. Instead of buying that 39th Ferrari they actually hire people because they would rather pay a person to work and innovate than give to the government. Its a better investment. When you raise taxes it makes that 35 million dollar piece of art on the wall cost 55 million.

[@FrancesKay1]

@TheCommonMan101 no YOU need a history lesson. Just because the GDP was going up does not mean wealth was being created. War is never good for an economy. Sure it will create some jobs but wealth is not being CREATED. When wealth is created you prosper and have the things you need and more. but in this case the money was just being spread around. That doesn't help. I don't understand how people can be so stubborn that they can't just accept the facts like those stated in this video.

[@xdassinx]

@Anastrodamus He left a great deal out. His kind always does. During WWII there was massive shortages and rationing back home. However, major corporations did make a huge amount of capital that they were able to invest after. The personal economies of the returning troops improved due largely to the GI Bill giving them the opportunity to get better jobs and so on. So he is right that the economy didn't totally recover during the war. The massive spending during the war did enable recovery after

[@kingmike40]

Unfortunately the US government is following the same policy of intervention that prolong the depression. They should have let the banks collapse and supported the manufactures for job since the banks caused the biggest part of the recession. They still haven't learned their lesson. The US will be lucky if we have a good economy by 2015. Even if the economy does improve we are still going to be saddled with debt that will hamper the economy.

[@jonescomplete]

@Lengo67 how does the government not do any of the things that you just attacked capitalists with? And btw, what country gives the most foreign aid from private citizens? and why are so many hospitals named after people? and why are there so many successful charitable organizations in capitalist society, but none in totalitarian? And why are you over-generalizing so much? Why focus on the actions of a few corporations? what about the entrepreneur that is crushed in your paradise?