First off, we have to take into consideration that the American popular support for the presidency was at an all time low. Hoover had just left office and much of the population were living in "Hoovervilles" eating only "Hoover Stew". So when a man like Franklin Delano Roosevelt steps up and decides to make something happen, the public respond immediately, and with great applaud.
Although, the positivity from the people is not the only thing to take under consideration when defining the effectiveness of the New Deal. The economic statistics fill in another side of the argument.
America's Gross National Product
1928-1939
| 1928 | $100 billion |
| 1933 | $55 billion |
| 1939 | $85 billion |
Private Investment in Industry
| 1928 |
$15 billion
|
| 1933 |
$2 billion
|
| 1939 |
$10 billion
|
From these stats above, one can see that before the Great Depression, America was at an economic peak with business flourishing with the wealth in earnest flow. Although, the first year of the New Deal (1933) saw little improvement, the following the next 5-6 years clearly saw immense improvements. In just under 10 years, America had nearly gotten back to its peak, but the unemployment rate was still high.
Number Unemployed in America
| 1929 |
2.6 million
|
| 1933 |
15 million
|
| 1935 |
11 million
|
| 1937 |
8.3 million
|
| 1938 |
10.5 million
|
| 1939 |
9.2 million
|
| 1940 |
8 million
|
From looking at the unemployment rate, the New Deal looks much less effective than looking at the economic progress. Why did the New Deal help the economy get back on its feet, but not sort out unemployment when so many aspects of the deal were to get the people jobs? Many say that the New Deal didn't really help America's troubles but was merely a short term impact. Some claim that the New Deal only got the wheels turning again and nothing else. The effectiveness of the New Deal can be looked at from so many angles, so what do you think?
Oops! My source:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/New_Deal_success.htm
Thank you so much for laying out these statistics like this! In terms of considering the effectiveness of the New Deal, I'm not sure if these are enough. From what I understand, there are almost infinite ways of measuring various aspects of the economy. I remember one time my friend explained to me that measuring the strength of a developing country's economy through purchasing power was an inaccurate way of doing so. I'd love to see a few more different statistics other than unemployment and GDP before deciding whether or not I believe the New Deal was effective.
ReplyDeleteThe New Deal had benefits in other areas, as well. I think a major factor to evaluate the program includes Social Security. FDR was the first president to introduce this concept of payment for those who could not work. While it did not have a huge impact then, (In 1937, 53,236 benefitted, with a cost of $1,278,000) it has proved to have a lasting effect on America's economy, for in 1997 6,566,000 people benefitted, costing $26,675,000,000. While it can be argued that this increase of expense is taking more money away from the government, and is therefore a negative idea, the increase in beneficiaries proves that there is an increase of protection. Depending on your perspective, the Social Security aspect of the New Deal can be determined beneficial to Americans.
Deletesource: https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/soc_sec/hgreat.htm