ManusJustus said:
Is your argument that in order for government intervention to work it has to be extreme? A better case for my idealogy would be Scandinavia, but prosperity during the Great Depression is a easy example to look at to disprove the notion that government intervention hurts the economy. |
No. I'd say more that every country got out of the great recession, and not ever country got more socialist.
Though I would say that if you suddenly take countrol of the very purchasing power of the nation via taking countrol of the actual industries, of course you are going to have an effect on their economies as you can force those people to make stuff even without profit.
The actual economy isn't improving at all. It's just your changing the entire way the economy works so it looks like it's improving when the fundamentals haven't changed. That was the thing. "Government Intervention" economics seem more like massive deficit spending to prop up a weak economy until it got better then an actual fix. That's exactlly when the fix came afterall, when FDR gave up balancing the budget and started defict spending.
Based on the theory that the great depression was due to the division of wealth... and that there is a greater division then there is now. (That was the main guiding principle of the New Deal afterall.)
Not that propping up the economy through the roughtest times is nessisairly bad. Though I would argue that propping up the economy through very minor reciessions is one of the big problems we have the financial crisis we have today.








