| ManusJustus said: I didnt say that all government intervention was positive, I said that not all government intervention was bad. Your opinion on the New Deal is off, in economics there is a 'job multiplier' effect where one persons income creates income for other people. By hiring workers to build government projects (Hoover Dam is best example) people were given income that they used to support other people's income which got the economy going again. |
Your opinion on the New Deal is off. To say that public works projects (CWA, WPA, and et al) ended the Depression is specious. The problem with government providing the jobs is that its workers are woefully inefficient, it cannot determine the worth of a worker and it takes resources away from the private sector. If we can solve our economic woes by hiring people to complete government projects, why are we not doing it now? I know why...it does not work. Also, the government created artificially high wages through NIRA codes and increased the cost of employment through the Social Security Tax and other failed policies. This prevented firms from hiring more workers because they could not afford them. If firms cannot hire workers, who is going to provide employment...the government?
Government intervention also hampered the US' agricultural recovery. As unemployment was rising and people were struggling to provide the basic necessities, the government ordered the destruction of surplus crops and caused food prices to remain high. This was done to ensure farmers could make a living, but the artificially high prices caused millions of Americans to starve because food prices were too high. I could go on about how the New Deal was by and large a disaster, but I have made my point.
