Nope, they mke the biggest mistkae in their article when they try and compare 1939 and 1929, 1939 shows they are cherry picking, because in 1937 and 38 we had the Reccession within the Depression when FDR tried to balance the budget and recude spending, when he abandoned the New Deal ideas of government intervention.
But again you're missing the point the fact is that they would have been unemployed without the intervention, you're saying that the nation was liming along, well without the government intervention it would have died, forget reduced hours try no hours, you're trying to argue that without the intervention things would have been better, and the fact is no they would have been worse, some work is better than no work and the New Deal gave people some work, without the new Deal no work, so yes, their argument against government intervention becomes garabge, you're trying to argue that Government intervention made the unemployment worse, when in fact it did the opposite, without intervention the unemployment would have been higher.
After 1935, it was illegal for them to act in that manner, so it had nothing to do with government intervention after 1935, any price fixing after that point was totally seperate from government action, the two year action of the government, however had little effect as we saw the economy improve strongly during that two year period, GDP rose fast and Unemployment fell, yet under the previous years of Hoover it didn't, obviously then price fixing and wage inflation are not to blame for the depression, if they were then the actions of the New Deal wouldn't have caused the economy to recover, it would have declined much like it did under hoover.
You argue that FDR decided to reinstate the foolish actions, and yet actual empirical data disagrees with you, unemployment fell, the Smoot Hartley tariff was a stupid idea, but it wasn't FDR's idea it was Hoover, trying to blame FDR's actions, by tying the failure of the tariff to wage inflation fails, because when FDR did it, we had falling unemployment, it was only when he went away from non intervention in 1937 and 38 that unemployment went back up.
The study didn't demonstrate anything, I read it, it tried to use a comparison of 1939 to 1929, which is flawed, because first off in 1939, was after FDR abandoned Keyensian ideas and tried to reduce spending and cut the deficit, and the economy tanked, he abandoned those government intervention ideas you decry and the economy collapsed again, so trying to blame government policies for the situation in 1939 only proves their argument's stupidity, the only reason we were in that mess in 1939 was because of non-interventionist ideas, the same ideas you champion.
Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!! It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!! Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)







