People seem to have this notion that the Great Depression ran right up until Pearl Harbor or something.

Because the depression plus the recovery ran up to near that point. When people talk about Roosevelt shepherding the country out of the depression they are generally talking about him shepherding the country through the recovery. I think the comments make that plain.

Now that definitions have been laid out it seems that now would be the time to tackle the broader argument.

BTW, why attack people in the comments section who assert Roosevelt ended the depression did and ignore those that claim he extended the depression? (the odo bit dichotomy if you will)

1. The figures you cite are annualized. Take each one and convert it to a quarter. Add the two quarters. That's 3.1%.

For the life of me I don't know why they report these things on an annualized basis. The average length of post war recessions is 10 months, so what does an annual rate really mean??

If you care to do the research, you will see that the 58, 75 and 81 recessions all had about 3% contractions.

2. You can't have it both ways. You can't invoke the soothing effect of Presidential rhetoric when it comes to FDR, but then tell me Obama crying "fire" in a theatre doesn't matter.

Apparently, Anjin, the fact slipped your mind that the freeway system was essentially a military operation

How about the street you live on? Is the DOD in on that? Did the pentagon build the sewer system your house is hooked up to?

a domestic policy of individualism

Is there a more important domestic issue than national security? I think not. And clearly, national security is not the purview of individuals.

That enters the realm of the culture

No, it is the realm of law and the government telling people how to live their lives. Funny how you have no problem with government grinding people under its heel if they are people you don't approve of...

since you are all about the individual, I know you don't want government in the business of telling individuals how to live.

That enters the realm of the culture... and I think you've read my extended notes on that. Need the link?

MMM. Yes. Of course. After all, it was individuals who deployed Pershing II's in Europe, throwing the Soviet Union into its death spiral.

Comparing foreign policy with a domestic policy of individualism is comparing apples and Banannas, Anjin. That difference is why foreign policy is, constitutionally speaking, strictly the province of the Executive.

And am I hearing you correctly that Reagan ended the cold war?

I'm no expert but, I had a question. If you look at the data where it shows the time span from peak to peak between 1929 and 1937 I believe it shows 93 months? Did I get that right?

Wouldn't that prolonged time period between those dates have created the perception that "hard economic times" really did run well into FDR's presidency? And after it dipped again I wonder how that "felt" to the people living at the time? Does that mean that FDR had really no effect at all? Meaning - could his policies have both raised the economy up and then dropped it again 4 years later? Or was this up and down out of the control of govt policy all together?

I'm curious because I seem to recall at the end of 07 and start of 08 it was widely accepted that we were in a recession even though data did not say we were.

So, I'm wondering if you're arguing a technical definition against the perception that, while yes the economy started growing again in 1933, the hole it was coming out of was so deep that there was no perception that things were better until much, much later...93 months later. And if that's the case - I agree, we're really arguing about how effective FDR was in aiding the rise or hindering it. Does that subsequent dip then tell us he wasn't doing enough since, war time spending then brought it back and, at lease seems to keep subsequent troughs short?

I think it would be more helpful if this data were represented by a curve. I think the visual representation of the height and depth of these peaks and troughs would illuminate a lot.

thanks for bringing this up! Very interesting!

how do you justify Obama's talking it down as he stumped for a bill?

Well the market is up, and confidence overall is up, way up really from where it was at then end of Bush's term. Maybe that Obama feller just knows what he is doing after all. I know we are coming of of 2 very solid months...

Reagan worked on the idea that the individual, not the government, was the key to success.

MMM. Yes. Of course. After all, it was individuals who deployed Pershing II's in Europe, throwing the Soviet Union into its death spiral.

Oh, wait... guess sometimes government is the answer sometimes, just as individual action is the answer sometimes. Just as small entrepreneurs are sometime the answer, just as huge corporations are sometimes the answer.

Gee bit, the big complicated world must be very confusing to you...

I guess I fail to understand what this means:

Obama invoking "national catastrophe" to talk down the economy for political gain and to pass his spending bill?

Since, by your own admission in your last, the economy was already down and heading further. What, exactly, do you mean by the expression 'to talk down the economy'? I don't think I'm the only one to construe that as asserting his speech (in the broadest sense) caused a further decline. What do you mean by 'talk down'?

Oh, and my anecdote about FDR's fireside chats was simply to point out that, in at least one instance (my grandmother's, and, I assert, many, many more), he supplied reassurance and hope to folks far from the levers of any kind of power during those times.

And I think you 3% contraction figure is off:

Purchases climbed 2.2 percent in the first three months of this year, halting their biggest slide since 1980. The economy shrank at a 6.1 percent annual pace after contracting 6.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008.[Source]

Steve, first I note James says:

I divide the U.S. Great Depression (1929-1939) into three episodes: (1) the initial downturn (1929-30), catastrophic free fall (1931-32), and slow recovery (1933-39). I believe there were different factors in play in each.

The also says:

Cole and Ohanian noted that many in the Roosevelt Administration believed that the severity of the Depression was due to excessive business competition that led to wages and prices that were too low. I actually agree, in a perverse sense, with part of that diagnosis-- I see the rapid deflation of 1929-33 as quite destabilizing. But I'm inclined to believe that the way to fix that would have been through a monetary and fiscal expansion rather than trying to lift nominal wages and prices back up by sheer government fiat.

Are we still on the assertion that "it is pretty much indsiputable that the Great Depression was all but over by the time FDR took office" ?

Man, who dropped that groaner into the discussion?

C'mon Sam - You know better than that. That the economy had headed south prior to Jan 8 (and Obama's subsequent cheerleading for the spending bill) is indisputable. In fact, the Sept/Oct melt down sealed it.

But you are arguing a straw man. The economy was not in danger of plummeting into "catastrophe" (depression) in January or February. And, empirically, here we are in May and contraction is 3%. Severe? Yes, like a good solid 70's or 80's recession. Depression? Not even close.

So I ask again. If the words of a President are oh, so vitally important in setting the tone of the nation (your position), and affecting the economy, how do you justify Obama's talking it down as he stumped for a bill? Unemployed people would like to know, Sam.

Sam - so given the "very, very real" effect of Presidential rhetoric you cite, what say ye about Obama invoking "national catastrophe" to talk down the economy for political gain and to pass his spending bill? And what do you say to those who lost their jobs as the nation panicked due to this "very, very real" effect??

Is it you contention that things were just fine prior to his Jan 8, president-elect, speech at GMU? I think the facts are, and can be shown to be, otherwise.

SV-I appreciate your response but methinks you do not see the contradiction in what you are saying- on one hand you go by a "definition" of what is depression; on the other you say that if the economy sucks but it is not shrinking is still a depression( the commnet "Of course not. But the economy started growing again in 1933" implies that if things suck- then it is a depression even if there was slow growth)- so feel free to use any definition anytime as long as it suits your preordained thesis- and please do not say the depression was over before FDR was inagurated- I am afraid you will not be invited to many reunions. As to the modicum growth in the late 30's- it does not compare with the real stimulus which began for WWII.

No Raoul, nowhere have I said that if the economy is growing but sucks it is still a depression. I've come out saying that claims that FDR prolonged the Depression are wrong. This does not fit with the narrative you've devined from from comments. In other words, you've misread between the lines.

If however, you insist that the Great Depression did not end up until WWII, then fine, I'm in the camp that FDR and the New Deal likely prolonged the Depression, under your definition. While some of the progrmas like the TVA, FDIC, and SEC were all good, NIRA, NLRA, AAA, and probably some others were bad with the latter likely outweighing the former.