This line of argument would only seem to hold if taxes were immediately made due, and if ‘the people’ were taxed equally, and if, well, if the government collected more taxes during that time period.

wikipedia time!

”

Business

Franklin D. Roosevelt[...]blamed the excesses of big business for causing an unstable bubble-like economy.[...]believed the problem was that business had too much power, and the New Deal was intended as a remedy, by empowering labor unions and farmers and by raising taxes on corporate profits. Regulation of the economy was a favorite remedy. [...]the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, and Social Security won widespread support.

Lack of government deficit spending

[...]Keynes argued [...]that lower aggregate expenditures in the economy contributed to a mbumive decline in income and employment that was well below the average. In this situation, the economy might have reached a perfect balance, at a cost of high unemployment. Keynesian economists called for governments during times of economic crisis to pick up the slack by increasing government spending and/or cutting taxes.

Mbumive increases in deficit spending, new banking regulation, and boosting farm prices did start turning the U.S. economy around in 1933,[citation needed] but it was a slow and painful process. The U.S. had not returned to 1929’s GNP for over a decade and still had an unemployment rate of about 15% in 1940—down from 25% in 1932. The unemployment problem was not solved until the post-World War II decontrolling of the command wartime economy in 1946.”

The key point here is that taxes were only raised on those divisions of the population that had large amounts of money, i.e. major conglomerated businesses.

In terms of debate over the idea of the New Deal lengthening the Great Depression, I’ll admit there isn’t consensus, but it’s not clear why, or where it’s coming from:

“Virtually all historians believe that the New Deal helped resolve the Great Depression, but economists are less certain, with a substantial minority believing that it either had no great impact or worsened the depression.[36] A 1995 survey of economic historians asked whether “Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression.” Of those in economics departments 27% agreed, 22% agreed ‘with provisos’ (what provisos the survey does not state) and 51% disagreed. Of those in history departments, only 27% agreed and 74% disagreed. [1]

The minority view is[...]that the New Deal “cartelization policies are a key factor behind the weak recovery.” They say that the “abandonment of these policies coincided with the strong economic recovery of the 1940s.”[...] that the “Great Depression was very significantly prolonged in both its duration and its magnitude by the impact of New Deal programs.” They suggest that without Social Security, work relief, unemployment insurance, mandatory minimum wages, and without special government-granted privileges for labor unions, business would have hired more workers and the unemployment rate during the New Deal years would have been 6.7% instead of 17.2%.[38]”

The arguments suggesting that the New Deal worsened or lengthened the Great Depression rest on the intuition that businesses would have, for some reason, hired more workers, despite a lack of increased demand for products, or the capital for purchasing products. As stated before, arguments using statistical analysis placing the worst part of the Great Depression after the institution of the New Deal only apply if one bumumes economic change is instantaneous.

A better argument against the New Deal policies might involve FDR’s erosion of executive limits on power- it’s set some precedents that can theoretically be seen today in the Bush administration, particularly in regard to changes in the Supreme Court. Regardless, it would be educational to at least read the wikipedia articles I’ve cited, as I left out several wrinkles for space reasons.

NEWS FLASH: ECONOMICS IS COMPLICATED

finale Posted:

...so if I understand correctly, GRX, you’re espousing extreme Laissez-faire economics? As in, “people who were unemployed during the Great Depression should not have been helped” economics? As in Adam Smith and Rockefeller and “I drink your Milkshake”?

How long did it take you to figure out I’m a laissez-faire Capitalist Libertarian? I go by Ayn Rand’s word 200% and then some, it shouldn’t have been THAT hard to figure out.

The fact of the matter is, as even some die-hard Socialists would admit to, is the great depression was just one part in a cycle of an ever-growing private-market economy. We’ve had similar cycles far beyond the great depression. As the person above put it, FDR’s economic policy of instituting those social programs was an error in/of itself. The people would have to pay for it, and often pay much more than through private means, and let’s not forget the illegal-ratification of the 16th amendment either-even a bigger cause to the great depression.

As Ayn Rand said:

“Let no man posture as an advocate of peace if he proposes or supports any social system that initiates the use of force against individual men, in any form.” (Imposing an involuntarily tax-system, eg. the illegal 16th amendment.)

“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). ” (Individuals have the right not to be taxed when not representated. Remember the Boston Tea Party? Our forefathers were not against taxation per-se, but were against any aggressive taxation and taxation without representation.)

“Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.” (If I need to explain to you what that means, I won’t: go read any of Ayn Rand’s books.)

Edit: All-n-all, if it wasn’t for the bankers of the late 19th century getting a certain group to illegally ratify the 16th amendment, big businesses wouldn’t be the problem to begin with.

Besides, no business is too big. It’s the people that’re not smart enough to endure a boycott that is the problem.

GRX, I really shouldn’t have to puzzle out your arguments or alignments from your posts- being forthright from the beginning could have saved us a lot of time. Ayn Rand has, um, a pretty bad reputation in a bunch of circles, for a bunch of reasons. I would strongly encourage you to read some criticisms of her work and Objectivism as a whole before you go quoting her. Rand’s fictional novels, particularly, have a nasty rep as being designed specifically to ensnare people who don’t understand the context of their views, by creating worlds specifically around making the arguments of Objectivism seem valid. Similarly, Anthem is criticized, because in it Rand describes her views as a fully original system, something they certainly are not. Rand’s views are also not something that you would necessarily find agreed to in Libertarian circles; even there, Objectivism is considered pretty extreme.

These aren’t systemic, but a couple internal inconsistencies in your own post above:

It seems strange and self-contradictory to suggest that a ratification of an Amendment, or any other process, can be illegal. Even if this were the case, illegality is insufficiently strong as a reason for denial-such an action should be established as amoral, unethical or even immoral before you can act as if it’s bad. Otherwise, your reasoning at least appears to be circular.

In regard to quotes on freedom or rights, you are going to need to define both concepts in regard to how you use them. Otherwise, they’re little more than rhetorical hammers.

It seems like you’re using a heavily Kantian system here, but I’m not sure, because Rand wasn’t quite Kantian in her views, either. I fear we aren’t going to communicate very well, because I’m more of a Pragmatist or a Consequentialist in my views. For me, reducing suffering or raising unemployment are more important than preserving fiscal rights. Regardless, I am interested in understanding just where you’re coming from.

Similarly, Anthem is criticized, because in it Rand describes her views as a fully original system, something they certainly are not.

How so? I got the book right next to me, nowhere is there the slightest bumumption it’s an “original idea…” Now, it is true not many, may even a few would be an overestimate, have gone into the depths Ayn Rand has.

Rand’s views are also not something that you would necessarily find agreed to in Libertarian circles; even there, Objectivism is considered pretty extreme.

I don’t agree with every Libertarian, either. But, neither party suits me. I could be an Independent, but that’s too much hbumle as people will argue I’m one thing or another. Well that and my circle of friends doesn’t include any Libertarians aside from me.

It seems strange and self-contradictory to suggest that a ratification of an Amendment, or any other process, can be illegal. Even if this were the case, illegality is insufficiently strong as a reason for denial-such an action should be established as amoral, unethical or even immoral before you can act as if it’s bad. Otherwise, your reasoning at least appears to be circular.

Since I’m a bit lazy right now, so I’ll just link to what I mean – Wiki article – When I have more time, I’ll list additional stuff.

In regard to quotes on freedom or rights, you are going to need to define both concepts in regard to how you use them. Otherwise, they’re little more than rhetorical hammers.

Well Ayn Rand defines it quite well for me, but since you ask… freedom is quite simply the ability to act in accordance with the dictates of reason, in accordance with one’s own true self or values, in accordance with universal values (such as the True and the Good), and even moreso being able to act on a logical basis without choosing emotional favoritism. At least, that’s freedom in general. As Ayn Rand put it, we have different freedoms: Intellectual freedom, Political Freedom, and Economic Freedom. If we are have not even one of those, everything else is nothing more than a totalitarian system.

It seems like you’re using a heavily Kantian system here, but I’m not sure, because Rand wasn’t quite Kantian in her views, either. I fear we aren’t going to communicate very well, because I’m more of a Pragmatist or a Consequentialist in my views. For me, reducing suffering or raising unemployment are more important than preserving fiscal rights. Regardless, I am interested in understanding just where you’re coming from.

While I know of Kante (refresh my mind if you will), tell me how I seem to be using a Kantian system. As my only style is cold and logical. I don’t try to be lukewarm or hot, just cold.