- Oct 14, 2005
- 9,711
- 6
- 76
Honestly there is no concrete answer. But a theory is pent up savings due to rationing during WWII that was unleashed on the economy post war. I'd also venture a guess being the worlds manufacturer helped as well.
The countries that got out of the gold standard the fastest were the ones that recovered from the GD the fastest. True story.
This is also known as the 'libertarians are fucking stupid and should never talk about money' law.
The countries that got out of the gold standard the fastest were the ones that recovered from the GD the fastest. True story.
This is also known as the 'libertarians are fucking stupid and should never talk about money' law.
Thought it started during WW2, 25% budget cuts or similar.The gold standard didn't cause the depression to last 10 years, extreme government intervention in all levels of economic activity did that. It was only until after the war when a lot of the new deal programs were either unfunded or were ruled unconstitutional and when government spending dropped did the private sector start to grow again.
Thought it started during WW2, 25% budget cuts or similar.
And that's an argument I read that helped end the depression. Massive cuts in the new deal spending to pay for the war.War is not "good" for the economy. War diverted the US from a lot of the new deal programs and can bring new technologies but that's it. War brings destruction and shortages of goods that actually benefit the consumer. War stimulates the economy the same as an earthquake or a plague.
A government can not spend its way to prosperity. All the new deal did was to lessen the pain, but it certainly did not end the depression.War diverted the US from a lot of the new deal programs
A government can not spend its way to prosperity. All the new deal did was to lessen the pain, but it certainly did not end the depression.
In order to end a recession/depression you need the growth of wealth. Businesses to produce, people to spend, real jobs to be created from nothing.
If I make $4000 a month and give $100 to each of my two kids my family is not $200 richer because of it. Now if I open a bank loan and give the kids $100 each from the loan then we are richer by $200 a month, but eventually I have to pay that loan back with interest which means our total wealth actually goes down long term and once the loan runs out we are back where we started.
But if my kids go out and make money mowing lawns then we become a wealthier household.
Obama
