Did the New Deal make the Great Depression last longer?

[FreedomLover]

[Charles Dean]

[Alan]

[davidlosh@davidlosh.com]

War!

The Great Depression was an extension of the War effort in Europe. We mobilized man power inside of the country rather than directing it at a foriegn enemy.

Reagan out spent the Russians militarially. It was very deliberate.

Man power needs to be busy in order to have an economy. We detest welfare but think nothing about propping up corporations who contribute very little to the common good. The banking industry comes immediately to mind.

Trading dollars on make work projects during the Depression did very little for us. It was the redirection of the war effort that brought us prosperity again.

We do need to look outside of our borders for future economic growth. I think all of history shows us that. War brings spoils from foriegn lands.

So I think the New Deal was just a holding pattern trying to keep protectionism alive in a resource rich continent. It just wasn't enough to give people incentive for more.

[Charles Dean]

[davidlosh@davidlosh.com]

The recessions followed.

We do have better oil prices. Viet Nam opened up a new world for the United States. The French took a shot, and now we seem to be there all over the place.

[Charles Dean]

[jon]

[Charles Dean]

I don't think that the war was the cause of the increase in gas prices. It had a great deal to do with demand from other countries in addition to unregulated trading. Prices came down after a provision in the farm bill over the summer didn't allow blind trading of oil futures anymore.

I was mostly speaking incredulously at David's comment that oil prices are so much better right now. Sure. Better than they were 6 months ago.

[davidlosh@davidlosh.com]

I always like to ask how people figure we lost the Viet Nam war.

As a historical fact there is no winning a ground war with the Chinese. There are just too many people in the service of that country to be able to win a war. We left a no win situation, but we still have a huge presence in Viet Nam. As a matter of fact we are trading partners with China also.

You brought up blood for oil. We now have a direct presence in Iraq and are talking with Iran. In my opinion the run up in oil prices was based on speculation of future consumption. Our war effort had nothing to do with that run up in pricing.

Iraq is a war we won by the standards of war against a tyrant, as we call Hussien. We killed his sons and put them on display. We captured him, put him on trial, and hanged him. If the definition of a win is killing the king we did that and then some.

War makes economic sense. We manufacture durable goods that are ultimately lost or destroyed. It's an endless chain of economic growth. War employs millions of people, It keeps them busy and opens up endless possibilities of further economic expansion.

I think the new deal was waiting for war. It was keeping people busy. The United States was in a nationalistic, protectionist mode and there were many idled hands. We had conquered this country and gone back to Europe.

We wanted to come home and hold out for a prosperity that never came. There was no reason for prosperity. There was no incentive. There were no new worlds to conquer. It's just human nature.

[Charles Dean]

[WestSideBilly]

Our principle objective in fighting the Vietnam war was to stop the spread of communism in Southeast Asia. In that sense, we did succeed ("win").

Likewise, our principle objective was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. We accomplished that. So in that sense, we did succeed ("win") there, too.


Both wars share some common traits - both lacked an understanding of the ramifications of war, the culture of the enemy, and an exit strategy. As a result they're usually viewed as "losing" wars.

[The Tim]

[rose-colored-coolaid]

[davidlosh@davidlosh.com]

Thank you Tim for injecting an on topic bit of reason to this thread, but we are talking about War!