The New Deal <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal> had some government jobs programs, like the WPA <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration> and the CCC <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps>, that created some low-paying jobs that, combined with agricultural price and production controls, enabled people to eat. But it did so by diverting such capital as remained from being invested in new private construction or manufacturing, what is called capital formation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_formation>. ("Capital" is not money, despite popular misconception. It is the stock of the the means of production, such as tools, factories, roads, etc.) Now some of those jobs did build public capital: the WPA built courthouses, roads, bridges, etc. The CCC did important work to conserve soil and treat the abuses that led to the Dust Bowl, so that deserves credit. But it should be noted there were few private housing starts in that period. On the contrary, owners of private housing were forced to accept additional nonpaying tenants, so that dwellings designed for one family came to house two or three unrelated families, most of them noncontributing.
There was some military buildup, however. Contrary to popular view, it began well before Pearl Harbor. That is what jumpstarted the reformation of industrial capital. It was made possible by severely restricting private consumption, and putting everything into industrial production. (Remember rationing <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing>?) In effect, the entire civilian population was mobilized for the war effort. The entire nation became a military force. So "work" is not the right word for the New Deal measures, which enabled a lot of people to eat and prevented civil disorder, but that "worked" only because the U.S. was then still largely an agrarian nation, with a smaller population. We produced enough food to export much of it, and that production was less dependent on inputs of fossil fuels. The New Deal measures that had some benefit are still in use, and more of the same cannot be expected to improve the situation. We have run out of arrows from that quiver. Americans like to imagine the United States is a breadbasket of the world, but that agricultural production depends on imports of raw materials, especially fossil fuels, and that importation in turn depends on the availability of credit to finance it. The 94% decline in the Baltic Dry Index <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Dry_Index> of shipping is ominous. In the dry land agriculture of the 19th century about 98% of the energy in a grain of wheat came from the sun and natural rainfall. Today, more than 95% comes from artificial inputs of mechanical cultivation, irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides, harvesting, storage, processing, and transport. If credit stops, imports stop, and food production reverts to 1890 levels, not enough to feed all the people in the cities. Libertarians are going to be hard pressed to convince people that this is not a failure of capitalism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism> or the market <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market>. In some ways it is. But it is mainly a failure of large organizations <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent_problem>, within which the market does not operate. Within large organizations we get political processes and the undue influences of competing factions studied by public choice theory <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory>. We are entering a dark period, long predicted by many of us, in which our constitutional rights will be threatened. I expect things to get a lot worse before they can get better, and for that cause, the Constitution Society exists, trying to preserve a foundation for recovery against a time when people will be ready for it. ma ni wrote: > What do Libertarians, and Ron Paul, think of Rachel Maddow's > chart last night (trying to advocate obama's government > stimulus/spending plan) supposedly showing how the New Deal DID > work? Her chart showed how jobs rose right after the New Deal. If > it's accurate, how does a good libertarian quickly refute it? > -- Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322, Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [email protected] ------------------------------------------------------------------- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
