Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BJClinton

The U.S. abandoned gold ....in 1933, after which its dramatic recovery immediately began.....

It is my understand that the recovery did not become sustainable till the war spending and production began in ernest.

Going off the gold standard was but one of numerous failed attempts. War finally did the trick.


5 posted on 12/13/2005 5:58:52 AM PST by bert (K.E. ; N.P . Franks in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: bert
It is my understanding, that the recovery did not become sustainable till the war spending and production began in earnest.

It is my understanding that the government was doing most of the spending and the private sector was doing most of the production. Does that mean that we spent ourselves into prosperity? or was it after the war when all the producers returned, that true prosperity became possible.

8 posted on 12/13/2005 6:11:26 AM PST by wita (truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: bert
I've heard this argument too often. My take on a couple of things. An ounce of gold has purchased a good tailored suit for centuries, at $500+ today the same can be said. If you want to argue that a $500 suit is not good (but a $1000 suit is) then you lose the gold standard argument for gold today is not worth a good suit as history has shown it to be. If you believe as I do that a $500 suit is good then gold like any other commodity, service, product can be a standard why then gold and why not suits. I choose the productivity of the US worker along with supply and demand as the standard and it is measured by the dollar. Besides, gold is no different than timber, cement, diamonds, or oil. If forced to choose a standard why not choose oil rather than gold. Like cloth (not paper) money oil can be burned.

Finally, the greatest prosperity in the world has occurred after the dollar was removed from the gold standard.
10 posted on 12/13/2005 6:40:54 AM PST by Omglol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: bert

The recovery didn't really start until the war started. It started in a small way before that but wasn't much. The real reason that the recovery was so long in coming was that FDR insisted on rasing taxes when he should have lowered them. This man did deserves the largest share of the blame for the depression taking so long to rebound.


19 posted on 12/13/2005 7:55:30 AM PST by calex59 (Seeing the light shouldn't make you blind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: bert
It is my understanding that the boom of the 1920's was caused by tons of European gold coming to New York for safe storage and the depression was caused by the return of that gold to Europe.

Only when Europe needed our armaments in the late 30's did the economy get going.
25 posted on 12/13/2005 12:30:39 PM PST by Kenny500c
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: bert
It is my understand that the recovery did not become sustainable till the war spending and production began in ernest.

Your understanding is correct. The economy was dead in the water, leading FDR in the 1936 election to grossly expand his New Deal initiatives, which also didn't do a lot of good in the aggregate, although they provided important support for many impoverished families.

If you know someone who, eg, was employed as a young man by the WPA or CCC, you will get a story that helps to understand why FDR was viewed as a god by so many.

31 posted on 12/13/2005 8:33:12 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson