This meme that is quickly taking hold that WPA (aka public works program, you know the one FDR enacted after the depression to put people to work building bridges and roads) not only didn't serve it's purpose but actually exacerbated the depression is fallacious, erroneous and just plain wrong.
The unemployment rate in 1932 was 23.6%. By 1936 it was 16.9%. A difference of roughly 6.5 points! Govt tried to tighten it's belt, thinking it would continue to subside and it was back to 19% by 1938. We all know the effect of WWII after that....
Any educated or well reasoned person still arguing against the stimulus at this point is either purposefully contrarian or a simple ideologue, either way I wish you well. For the rest of the pragmatist I say this. We can either stimulate demand by giving people traditional out of work benefits such as unemployment, welfare, wic and increasing medicare/aid. OR, OR we can provide jobs, along with which come a sense of pride, worth and contribution.
With chronic extended unemployment expected to reach as high as 12% YOUR JOB could be on the line. If that was the case which would you rather have:
A. A govt created job, where you go to work everyday, have co-workers, have a routine and a semblance of continuity, and pride!
B. A book of foodstamps, a welfare card and a weekly trip to unemployment.
If the cost to the govt is the same or even comparable who would argue against A. I can only surmise those who derive some nominal benefit from subjecting their fellow citizens to the latter.
You'll hear a lot of people arguing Keynes, Mill, Bastiat, Say et al and while on its face their findings are applicable vis-a-vis supply and demand, my point is not to argue the nuances of complex economic theory. My point is that IF the govt is going to subsidize the masses why not subsidize them with jobs instead of welfare, ceteris paribus?
The unemployment rate in 1932 was 23.6%. By 1936 it was 16.9%. A difference of roughly 6.5 points! Govt tried to tighten it's belt, thinking it would continue to subside and it was back to 19% by 1938. We all know the effect of WWII after that....
Any educated or well reasoned person still arguing against the stimulus at this point is either purposefully contrarian or a simple ideologue, either way I wish you well. For the rest of the pragmatist I say this. We can either stimulate demand by giving people traditional out of work benefits such as unemployment, welfare, wic and increasing medicare/aid. OR, OR we can provide jobs, along with which come a sense of pride, worth and contribution.
With chronic extended unemployment expected to reach as high as 12% YOUR JOB could be on the line. If that was the case which would you rather have:
A. A govt created job, where you go to work everyday, have co-workers, have a routine and a semblance of continuity, and pride!
B. A book of foodstamps, a welfare card and a weekly trip to unemployment.
If the cost to the govt is the same or even comparable who would argue against A. I can only surmise those who derive some nominal benefit from subjecting their fellow citizens to the latter.
You'll hear a lot of people arguing Keynes, Mill, Bastiat, Say et al and while on its face their findings are applicable vis-a-vis supply and demand, my point is not to argue the nuances of complex economic theory. My point is that IF the govt is going to subsidize the masses why not subsidize them with jobs instead of welfare, ceteris paribus?
