I've got that itch again...

[The One and Only...]

It's fun to debate with Keynesians...

Originally Posted by MatthewCleveland

Now here you go argueing FDR's new deal with out mentioning that actually reasons for these laws. You cited all problems that resulted from them, but none of the sucesses. The consumer taxes you talked about didn't punish the needy. The needy had no where enough money to buy radio's and such. The consumer taxes were meant for the upper middle class taht still had some wealth left in them.

And what stimulates job growth? Hmm... I don't know... higher effective demand i.e. consumption? Way to go, FDR; snatch that money so that entrepeneurs can not get back on their feet again!!!

The National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) also cut back production because factory owners were faced with underconsumption coupled with overproduction. Warehouses were stockpiled with thousands upon thousands of consumer goods with no market to sell them too. This act forced industry to cut back its production to *STAY* in business. At their current rate they would of driven themselves out of business. It was necessary to cut back production and growth in order to reestablish a strong manufacturing base and build its self back up.

I agree with the comment that production was over demand levels; however, the problem was with turning the wages above market levels. That was a part of the Keynesian reinflation plan which not only destroyed jobs, but horribly failed. Production would have scaled itself back if the government would have, you know, let the business fail.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) was intended to raise farm prices back to thier pre-Depression levels. Farmers having lost all thier money on credit based investments were losing thier mortages to banks while farm prices were dangerously low because of high production. This act paid farmers to leave thier land fallow as to decrease the supply in order to stabilize prices. The governmetn fixed grain and corn prices in order to bring stability back to the government.

You know what else would have raised incentive for farmers to leave their land? Oh, gee, I don't know... keeping the price of food so low that farmers had to leave? Yes, that's it. Farmers would hav left themselves if they could have found more lucrative jobs. Saying that higher food prices was needed is asinine; the poor could hardly pay for meals as it was. Fixed prices cause shortages or surpluses, since they do not respond to the market. In other words, it was a waste - unless, of course, you believe in the Keynesian reinflation plan.

Your views on the National Labor Relations Act is jsut disgusting. Prior to this act blacklisting and spying on union meetings was common practice. People were fired in mass droves as cheap immagrant and black laborers took thier places by the droves. The National Labor Relations Act allowed unions to lobby for better conditions (which are inarguably horrific) along with job security and higher wages. This helped also bring stability to economy as people could be assured that they would be able to keep thier jobs.

Better conditions for who? The union workers. Meanwhile, those immigrants and blacks have to starve, or live on a welfare check. In any case, better working conditions could have been provided with a wage deduction, which would not have been "inarguably horrific" if prices had been allowed to fall.

The Tennesse valley Authority "monopoly" brough jobs to the south. It put men to work and allowed them to send checks home to thier family. It created cheaper power supplies from the hydroelectric dams created.

But it would have been nowhere near as productive as market jobs, which would have been created if only prices and wages hadn't been held high and distorted.