I continue in my efforts to defend against unjustified attacks Roosevelt. We, at this rate I do Keynesian (and yes, I realize that you have not analyzed any economic data currently English). Angel gives me a piece of test - in fact would have to find the time to respond point by point, but for now I will simply present this graphic:
The facts are the same as presents Angel in his post (in the first frame and second figure), but instead of giving the figures in billions of dollars I do it in% of GDP. This is quite important in the case of the thirties, due to the deflation of a horse above them. I also extend a little period of time covered by the chart until the end of the 50, because I think that five years after the war just might be a bit atypical.
Some observations:
(1) It is interesting to see how government spending and private investment are "mirror images of each other" (sorry but can not find a way to put it so simply in English).
(2) Where is the encouragement of Roosevelt? I do not see. When it comes to power in 1933 FDR seems that spending public is already over 15% of GDP (an increase of 6% since 1929). With FDR maximum to be achieved by increased spending for the war will be from 16.1% in 1939. As is pointed out Angel is a change in the composition of spending, with a transfer of state and local spending at the federal level, but the net impact on the total seems to be very small.
(3) What do you mean private investment recovers? Passed from a paltry 3% of GDP in 1933 to a healthy 13% in 1937, before the famous relapse 37-38 (which is so well illustrated in the graph of unemployment Angel), and then recovering again to 13% in 1940.
(4) History the uncertainty of both Higgs regime like Rallo and Angel seems like a convincing hypothesis to explain the relapse of 1937-38 but I'm not so sure that can be applied to all the three terms of Roosevelt. And indeed, it seems much more convincing than the explanation of Romer, Krugman and all other band that relapse was caused by fiscal contraction in 1937. What fiscal contraction of 1.7% of GDP caused a drop of 4% and unemployment rose by five percentage points? I do not buy it.
(5) Finally, Angel and Rallo asked about comparisons with other countries (that if Germany, Canada, etc). Maybe I chart comparing some more countries, but in my previous post I chose the comparison with the United Kingdom because it seemed the most relevant. In 1933 the U.S. had lost its position as the richest economy in the world per capita, surpassed not only by the United Kingdom by Switzerland and Denmark. In 1939 he had regained that status once again and no major economy has achieved again.
0 comments:
Post a Comment