Alex Tabarrok takes Eric Rauchway to the woodshed and spanks him so hardmy butt hurts. As a general rule, it is a bad idea to title an exceptionally misleading and/or ignorant post "Stop lying".
Rauchway thinks that counting people on work-relief as unemployed is a right-wing plot. If so, it is a right-wing plot that exists to this day because people who are on workfare, the modern version of work relief, are also counted as unemployed.
Here is what Weir says about that:
For 1931 to 1943, I accept Lebergott’s employment estimates as accurate, except for a major conceptual conflict regarding the classification of federal emergency relief workers. Darby challenged the standard classification followed by the census, the CPS, and Lebergott that counted such workers unemployed. Lebergott has argued eloquently that counting them as unemployed is a more accurate depiction of the failure of the private economy to generate unemployment. Margo has found that the labor supply behavior of relief workers shared some characteristics of both employed and unemployed workers, and suggests that at least some should probably be classified as employed. In the absence of a clear basis for distinguishing employed from unemployed relief workers, I agree with Darby that counting all relief workers as employed is more consistent with modern theoretical interpretations of unemployment, so I include them as government workers.
Also, Tabarrok says that Rauchway "Call[ed] someone a liar because they use a different statistic"
Rauchway's rebuttal is here:
"That’s not why I called him a liar, and Alex, you know that. The WSJ op-ed says,
As late as 1938, after almost a decade of governmental “pump priming,” almost one out of five workers remained unemployed.
There’s no sense in which this is not dishonest, for reason (1) below; reason (2) makes it merely indefensible, not dishonest.
(1) “As late as … remained” means the unemployment rate *stayed* high. The truth is, the unemployment rate was *again* high, after going significantly down 1933-37.
And the reasons it was significantly down 1933-37 almost certainly owe to intelligent government intervention—I would call it banking and monetary—by the Roosevelt White House. In other words, by part of the New Deal.
As to why it was *up* again in 1938, there are different stories about this, as I’m sure you know: Keynes blamed both Roosevelt’s fiscal stringency *and* his rhetorical excesses against bankers; modern econ historians (Lester Chandler, if memory serves) blame the Fed.
(2) The phrase “after almost a decade of governmental ‘pump priming,’” is wrong, too—maybe not so obviously wrong as to be dishonest, but it’s wronger than a careful economist or historian should be. As you know, I’m sure, E. Cary Brown long ago pointed out that the thing about fiscal policy in the New Deal was that it was never sufficient to have Keynesian effects. The implication of the WSJ op-ed is that *all this* pump priming didn’t work. The truth seems to be, there never was enough pump-priming to work."
Couldn't you do some preliminary research before linking to Tabarrok's crap?
Rauchway responded remarkably placidly and self-assuredly for someone who just got "spanked", wouldn't you say? You would have to explain how refusing to count people on work-relief is more than just an ideological predisposition to get me to care much at all about this.
Note to self: no more reading McArdle at work, even for a short break, until she learns to be a bit more careful about posting materials arousing to fetishists.
2nd note to self: you can stop thinking about her butt now. Really.
"Now a lot of people remember [the WPA] as boondoggles and raking leaves," Reagan said in 1981. "Maybe in some places it was . . . . But I can take you to our town and show you things, like a riverfront that I used to hike through once that was a swamp and is now a beautiful park place built by the WPA."
Ronald Reagan saying--in 1981, long after he had repudiated his youthful New Dealism--that what the WPA workers did was real, valuable work? (Which to me at least suggests that there is something wrong with calling them "unemployed" in the same sense as a man who loafs at home. And yes, if today's workfare workers worked full-time and built as many highways, dams, etc. as the WPA and PWA workers did in the 1930's, I wouldn't count *them* as unemployed either.) The guy was obviously some kind of Commie!
First off, if counting people on work-relief as unemployed is an ideological plot, it's a remarkably long-lived one as that's how we've compiled unemployment statistics for decades now.
Second, if you want to count people on work-relief as employed then get ready for 0% unemployment. The government can just give half the unemployed jobs digging ditches and the other half jobs filling them up! Presto! A magical world in which no one is ever out of work!
Surely that would cure any conceivable economic ill.
I mean, if Cool Hand Luke taught me nothing else, it was the redemptive power of meaningless work enforced by government agents. Oh wait...
It seems to me that Eric's problem wasnt one of factual accuracy, but one of rhetorical excesses. You know, kind of link writing a post about it entitled "ouch."
Except that the WSJ did lie, by saying unemployment remained during the decade at one-fifth after the crash. The unemployment rate dropped from 32-38, which means it didn't remain at the higher level during that time, which means the WSJ lied.
rick,
I dont disagree that the wsj lied. I just think that the sort of irrational reaction people are having to Eric's text is based on the rhetorical style, rather than the factual basis, as I said. And I just noted the paralel to McArdle's own rhetorical excess, except that there is a lot less substance there.
Yes, it was misleading for the WSJ piece to talk only about peak unemployment, but the fact is unemployment was high (really high) throughout the decade. Why was the economy so poor at allocating resources for such a long period of time?
My hypothesis is that there was poor macro policy by both depression-era administrations. What's yours?
Of course, the main point here is that having ~8% of the population reliant on government work programs is not, in fact, evidence of the New Deal's success - especially when that scenario exists a decade after the big stocks crash.
Things were really bad when FDR took over. After 8 years things were still not good, but a whole lot better. U.S. GDP fell 20% from 1930-1933, then bottomed out, then started growing."
FDR had growth rates that not even the GOP GodKing Reagan could produce.
And in addition, we have experimental confirmation - in the late 1930's, the GOP forced a partial pull-back of the New Deal, which led to an immediate recession.
FDR save the USA, for which the Right has never forgiven him.
I'd caution someone with an MBA from wading half-cocked into a debate like this with a PhD, especially one with a PhD in the relevant subject matter. But then again McMegan also likes to pretend she's an economist so I guess my cautionary statement would probably fall on deaf ears.
"Of course, the main point here is that having ~8% of the population reliant on government work programs is not, in fact, evidence of the New Deal's success - especially when that scenario exists a decade after the big stocks crash."
Posted by MikeF
I'll swear - it's physically impossible to refute the New Deal and FDR's actions without being highly dishonest.
Just to help you on math, 1938 is nearly 'a decade after the big stocks crash', but it's only five years after the bottoming out of the economy. And by 'bottoming out of the economy' I do not mean as in a normal recession; we're not talking a percent or two decline here.
rick, I followed your link to the rebuttal and color me unimpressed. Rauchway has some funny ideas about the English language if he thinks a factually accurate statement is a lie. The funny thing is, he reworded it a bit to show how it could just be misleading, except that his reworded version had exactly the same meaning as the original.
Alex Tabarrok is either an idiot or incredibly naive.
He goes on and on on the particular unemployment statistic Eric used in his post, but it is clear to anyone with half a brain that Eric's point was not about whether it was 14 or 20%, but about the trajectory. Anyone who has ever taken even a survey class on labor economics knows about the differences in how unemployment is measured and how there is no one "true" measure.
In fact, the entire point is the "remained." After all, it is less relevant, as anyone with half a brain would know, which is the true figure of unemployment in a causal argument about the effects of X on unemployment. What is more important than that is the trajectory.
And then, I am sorry, but only someone with no brain whatsoever to not notice the dishonesty that Eric is pointing to. You cannot get two high points in a trend line and say that something has "remained" high.
Eric's only problem was assuming that others without the same background in the discussion would notice that. The truth is that no one, regardless of political orientation, really cares about arcane discussions of which is the "true" series. Everyone with a modest knowledge of labor economics and ILO recommendations knows that there are advantages and disadvantages to all methods of measuring unemployment, and the key thing is using consistent data.
In that case, regardless of what data is used, it is clear that the WSJ picked two years that would fit its argument, completely ignoring the trend data before or after it.
Please provide data, completely with descriptive statistics, correlations, and the appropriate assumptions to back up your claim that the New Deal was -the- contributing factor to ending the depression.
I don't think it can be done.
Anything more than that is just bickering about theory on both sides of the issue. I think it does make some sense that putting people to work on community service projects is both good and bad for the economy.
But the most important question I'd ask is to follow the money. Who paid to put the people to work? Not the government, they don't make money, they just take it from those who do. And I don't mean that as a slap in the face, just a matter of fact -- taxation.
So you feel it's better that the government take money from individuals who have money, and then hire people to do stuff with that money and that is better for the economy than letting the people who have and created money and value continue to do so on their own.
I read Rauchway, Tabbarok, Rauchway again, and Tabbarok again, and I think Tabbarok is correct, and more civil to boot.
Unemployment was very high, became less very high, and then was equally high again over a ten year period. This was during a period when all sorts of things were being done to bring unemployment lower. If you cannot call those efforts a "failure" I'm not sure what would constitute a "failure".
If this graph is meant to show bold, successful government action, I'd hate to see a graph of timid, unsuccessful government action
Also, I'd count people working in Government makework schemes as being employed. My god, if we stopped counting them, the US unemployment rate would be about 30% now.
Zanon,
You are seeing the forest but missing the tree.
Eric's argument wasnt about which statistic to use, nor was he trying to provide definite proof that the new deal worked.
He was raising an issue with a WSJ editorial that said that
"As late as 1938 … almost one out of five workers remained unemployed"
Which is at least misleading. Looking at the time series, regardless of which data you use, you have a peak in unemployment in 32-33, then it falls quite a bit until 37, goes up a bit in 38 and then back again. Erik wasnt using this as proof that the new deal ended the great depression. He was using this as proof that the WSJ was intentionally misleading.
Regarding what solved the great depression, that is another argument, one which Eric would present more than just a graph to support.
What IS clear is that Alex either misread or misrepresented Eric's point to be one about which statistic to use, which it wasnt, and that unemployment had not "remained" at a certain level by 37... it had gone down quite a bit and then up a bit. What caused it is another matter entirely, but it is clear that WSJ's editorial was not entirely honest.
this discussion seems really dumb. as someone else asked, is he saying there were two great depressions? if not, whatever was done between the two peaks did not solve the unemployment problem, and unemployment "remained" high after X years. perhaps not incredibly precise, might have been preferable to say it returned to high levels or somesuch, but the point was that the problem had obviously not been solved despite actions taken during intervening period.
Actually, I would rather see her vaunted economic libertarianism brought to bear on what to do about the Auto makers rather than carrying someone else's intellectual water about the vagaries of the Great Depression.
It seems to me that someone at the Atlantic is going sit in silence until a decision is made about whether or not to prop up these companies and then pick that decision apart ex post facto and talk about how dumb the Democrats are.
FDR did all kinds of things as part of the New Deal. Some of them were helpful. Some of them were unhelpful. Some of them had no impact at all on the economy, but set up all kinds of other things that can be deemed positive or negative depending on one's ideological beliefs.
The politicization of the New Deal is like this roving lobotomy that makes people believe they can get by with half a brain. A terrible shame given how unique the Depression was, how important it is that it must be avoided, and how we might be in a similar situation right now.
In terms of which statistic to use, I personally think that work-fare should count as employment, or should be removed from unemployment counts altogether (as military employment is, I believe). I would be quite happy if the Government offered employment to everybody, no questions asked, so work-fare on a national scale.
As for Eric's graph -- in my eyes it shows 10+ years of unacceptably high unemployment, in spite of dramatic actions by the Government. My interpretation of this is that no one really knows what caused the Depression, and so no one is really sure what we can do now to avoid another. Scary stuff.
If you think an unemployment level of 25% going to 15% and back to 20% as being "too high", "much better", "also high, but less high" then that's fine. I see "unacceptably high", "unacceptably high", and "unacceptably high". We can certainly agree to disagree whether there is a material difference between a 25% unemployment rate, and a 15% unemployment rate that began deteriorating again almost immediately.
Your opinion of how acceptable a 1-year unemployment rate of 15% is will determine whether you think the WSJ article was unreasonable or not.
You can say that WSJ was wrong, and Eric was right. I see a decade that I am very glad I did not have to live through.
Let the companies that are bankrupting themselves with bad business decisions made years ago and continuing to be made up to this day bankrupt themselves.
Is that a bad policy? Yes a whole lot of people -may- lose their jobs. But their jobs aren't paying for themselves anyway eh?
Why is it Toyota or BMW has no problem making money making cars in the US? Maybe because they put their factories in states (generally the south) where the workers are happy to trade a honest days hard work for pay.
People who have become conditioned to look at their boss and question how much "the man" makes and demand they get paid more of their fair share have a good way of ruining a company.
I see no reason to continue to allow all our tax dollars to pay for:
-generous pensions demanded by greedy workers and agreed to by short-sighted management
-inflexible manufacturing solutions that do not respond rapidly to changes in demand.
I'd comment a bit on the auto companies turning themselves into financing companies, but the fact is they have a TON of cash on hand. The problem is they are burning through it like crazy because payroll/benefits are high and sales are low.
Unfortunately I have full faith that Obama will screw up and bail these guys out rather than letting them fall apart and have some other company swoop in and pick up the pieces.
I hope it's just a bad phase at blogging you're going through Megan.
The state of your butt apart, do you have thoughts, of your own, to contribute re: Rauchway Vs. Tabarrok - which, to me, is far from decided either way- or do we presume you stand by Tabarrok, with nothing to add?
Looking at the time series, regardless of which data you use, you have a peak in unemployment in 32-33, then it falls quite a bit until 37, goes up a bit in 38 and then back again. Erik wasnt using this as proof that the new deal ended the great depression. He was using this as proof that the WSJ was intentionally misleading
Yes, unemployment fell from 1933 to 1937. But it remained absolutely atrocious; it did not recover until America entered WW2. The WSJ's point was that unemployment had obviously not recovered even after six years of the New Deal, and that argument is irrefutable given the data. The WSJ is not being "misleading", and they quite certainly weren't lying. Their specific claim (the unemployment rate) was true accurate, and their larger point (that the economy still hadn't recovered) was true as well, since the economy didn't recover until 1942.
Did the WSJ cherry-pick 1938 to because it was a local maximum? Undoubtedly. But that doesn't change the truth of their core point, which his graph in fact supports: after a decade of unprecedented government intervention, the unemployment rate had fallen from its ~25% peak only down to the ~15-20% range. When one compares that with the recovery times of other historical depressions, it is difficult to argue convincingly that the interventions can be definitively credited with any of the recovery at all.
The only way to get a really impressive drop down to the ~10% level is to "cook the books" by counting make-work as employment, which Rauchway did without calling out this rather significant manipulation in his original attack on the WSJ.
Is this where libertarians jump the shark, and they just plain don't give a damn about ordinary meanings of ordinary words?
Alex is wrong. Period. Eric is right. Period.
The _only_ way to go against this is to say that unemployment remained at or above 20% the whole time; that's what Eric is griping about, explicitly:
. . .we find stated as fact
As late as 1938, after almost a decade of governmental “pump priming,” almost one out of five workers remained unemployed.
Readers of this site know this is simply not true. For pity’s sake, Conrad Black knows this is not true.
And rather than some academic argument about which statistics to use, what Alex is claiming the brouha is about, Eric states, very explicitly:
There’s no sense in which this is not dishonest, for reason (1) below; reason (2) makes it merely indefensible, not dishonest.
(1) “As late as … remained” means the unemployment rate *stayed* high. The truth is, the unemployment rate was *again* high, after going significantly down 1933-37.
So, if anyone wants to say that this is not an example of WSJ editorial perfidy because unemployment really never did get much lower than 20% during that time period, fine. Bring on your facts and figures.
But if people - and we know who and what they are - are going to say that 'technically' unemployment did decline to around 14% . . . but that this is still pretty bad. Well, that's just plain dishonest.
Dishonesty which can't be waved away with feigned ignorance. As I said, I think libertarians just plain don't give a damn anymore, and this bland stating of lies, and then denying that they are lies is just their little way of spewing venom, their version of an FU as it were.
re·main (r-mn)
intr.v. re·mained, re·main·ing, re·mains
1. To continue in the same state or condition: These matters remain in doubt.
2. To continue to be in the same place; stay or stay behind: We are remaining at home.
3. To be left after the removal, loss, passage, or destruction of others: Only a few trees remain. See Synonyms at stay1.
4. To be left as still to be dealt with: A cure remains to be found.
5. To endure or persist.
'Remain' does not mean 'things were one way, then they changed, then they went back to the other way'. So, reality has a liberal bias. Logic has a liberal bias. And now we find that dictionary definitions have a liberal bias.
Regardless of what you think the new deal achieved or not, that is NOT what Eric is discussing.
If you want to argue that unemployment fell slower than it would otherwise have fallen because of the new deal, fine, that is one argument you can try to make. But that argument is both quantitatively and qualitatively different from saying that the unemployment did not decrease at all. And THAT is what the WSJ is trying to say. You really have to stretch what they "meant" to argue that they were trying to claim that unemployment did not fall as fast as it should.
You are getting ahead of yourselves: whether the new deal "cured" the great depression or not was not argued in any part of Erik's text (and even if it didnt it certainly does not follow from that that keynesianism is wrong). It might have done more harm than good, but WSJ's editorial is still, at the very least, incredibly misleading.
Furthermore, while some ambiguity in Erik's first post might have mislead Alex and Megan, Erik has further clarified his position, and if Alex and Megan do not retract and/or modify their posts, it will simply demonstrate an unwillingness to engage in honest debate.
Just because you agreed with the WSJ's conclusions does not mean that the data and arguments they made are correct. It is clear beyond a doubt that 1 in 5 had not "remained" unemployed by 1938 (remained the key word- 1 in 5 were unemployed that year, but that was after an increase of 5% in a year), and that they carefully picked 1938 for effect. Of course, they could, as you have, argue that the recovery was too slow, or not in any way smooth, and that there severe bumps in the road, but they cannot mislead the public by saying unemployment figures "remained" a certain value when they didnt.
See two comments above yours for the facts you asked for.
As for when the Great Depression ended, it is a fallacy to look at the unemployment data anyway. Look at personal consumption. WWII lowered unemployment (vast increases in the numbers of soldiers and workers turning out weapons of war for the government do this quite effectively), but the citizenry were still living in extreme deprivation compared to the decade of the 1920s right through to the years after the war. The depression ended after the war when the worst aspects of the New Deal had been abandoned, the debts that had initiated the Great Depression had been finally been cleared and accepted, and an argument can definitely be made that the uncertainty engendered by Roosevelt's penchant for interventionism ended with his death in 1945.
And for what it is worth, the average unemployment rate for the years of the Roosevelt administration from his first election to the start of WWII in Europe is 19+%.
SOV, look at the original post to which Alex responded. Someone reading it with the "ordinary meaning of ordinary" words in mind would never guess that Rauchway's argument with the WSJ turns on the use of the word "remained" or their choice of the year 1938. "Remained" is not bolded in his post. He does not mention the cherry-picking of 1938. Instead, he has many links to and a graph of his revised unemployment series showing unemployment falling to ~10% in the late 30s. He doesn't mention that this series depends on the assumption that make-work counts as employment, or even that other series exist. Any person reading that post with the "ordinary meaning of ordinary words" in mind would presume that his core argument was that unemployment was ~10%, not ~20%, in the late 30s.
Only after Alex called him out did he decide that his beef wasn't with unemployment being ~20% in 1938, but with the word "remained" and the cherry-picking of that year.
The facts, on which you and I and Rauchway can presumably agree, are that unemployment as usually defined had declined from ~25% into the ~15-20% range by the late 30s. (Your choice of the very lowest point must surely count as just as "dishonest" as the WSJ's choice of the very highest point. As the graph in Rauchway's second post makes clear, unemployment bounched around in that range for 5 years.)
Should those facts count as a success for the new deal? An honest answer is: we can't say. Unemployment had gone down some, but it would have gone down some without the new deal, and it was still well above the full employment level.
David, I _quoted_ from the piece you're linking to. Nor did I say anything about declining to some specific figure and arguing either the merits of the derivation of the figure.
Someone reading it with the "ordinary meaning of ordinary" words in mind would never guess that Rauchway's argument with the WSJ turns on the use of the word "remained" or their choice of the year 1938.
That's just plain - here's the word again lying. I would have thought the fact that his graph shows that, yes unemployment was about 20% in 1938, the same one-in-five the WSJ uses would have made it immediately obvious that it was not a quarrel over a choice of metric. I would also have thought that the graph shows that unemployment did not remain at or above 20% during the intervening years would have been a bit of a clue.
In fact, I'm very certain that you saw this.
Now.
You can say: I. Was. Wrong. Or you can keep being a nasty little twit. I vote for the nasty little twit. You don't have a leg to stand on, and I don't particularly care what names you elect to call me after this exchange. Because you clearly have no intent of ever being honest. And I could care less what a person who's behaving like you are thinks.
My God, my fourteen-year-old daughter has more integrity than this when talking about her worst enemies.
Update: Looking at the graph again, I see that I was wrong; my eyes are getting old. Yes, he is using a different figure for unemployment, even though the shape of the curve is the same.
I'll say it once again: I was wrong about the employment figures on the graph.
See? This really isn't all that hard to do. I wasn't immediately engulfed in flames, nothing dramatic. Why people like you can't do this is a mystery.
SOV: No, in the post I linked to, Rauchway's original post, his graph shows unemployment at 12% in 1938, and even under 10% in 1937. Please go take a look. Only in his second post does he change to a graph, using a different series, that admits the truth of the WSJ figure for 1938.
Now do I get to call you a "nasty little twit" who has "lo let to stand on" and who has "no intent of ever being honest"?
As a matter of fact, no, you don't: I admitted I was wrong, you see. With absolutely no problems.
And you won't. Ever. Even when you know you're wrong. As you surely do now, and as I see on other comment threads people have pointed out multiple, multiple, multiple times.
Now, you may think it unfair that when I was wrong, it was wrong in a way that didn't detract in the slightest from my point, so that I wasn't giving anything of value up. Well, that's just tough.
That's the big difference between people like you and me: I can modify hypotheses in the face of new data. You . . . cannot. Or maybe will not is a better descriptor, but if so, that makes you more culpable, not less.
Here's another minor point. Rauchway is wrong about something else, the HSUS he cites, the millennial edition, is not an official publication of the Bureau of the Census - it’s a book published by Cambridge University Press. No doubt it is a good book but Tabarrok is correct that the series he cites is the official series.
You want to disagree with the definitions of quite simple words John? Here it is again:
re·main (r-mn) intr.v. re·mained, re·main·ing, re·mains 1. To continue in the same state or condition: These matters remain in doubt. 2. To continue to be in the same place; stay or stay behind: We are remaining at home. 3. To be left after the removal, loss, passage, or destruction of others: Only a few trees remain. See Synonyms at stay1. 4. To be left as still to be dealt with: A cure remains to be found. 5. To endure or persist.
To repeat an earlier post of mine, 'Remain' does not mean 'things were one way, then they changed, then they went back to the other way'. That is not a special reading, it is not an idiosyncratic reading, it is not a reading based on anything but 'the ordinary meaning of ordinary words'.
"The government can just give half the unemployed jobs digging ditches and the other half jobs filling them up! Presto! A magical world in which no one is ever out of work!"
Doesn't that describe the Bush administration? Paying folks to dig deep holes and then paying other folks even more to fill them in again? Except they are economic or policy or strategic holes, not literal holes. And yet, more people are out of work, regardless.
Personally, I never heard a "Greatest Generation" person speak disrespectfully of the WPA or consider it anything less than a godsend that did a lot of good. Maybe there were some boondoggles I've never heard of, but there are also a lot of parks and roads and schools we've been enjoying for 70 years. There was a significant amount of clearly valuable work left behind, we still use it today. Only someone fairly unfamiliar with the program would compare it to digging holes and filling them in again.
And if that circular project was the best work you had available, so that someone could eat their free bread with pride after a day's work, instead of just taking a handout, then what's so bad about that? You'd rather just give them the bread for nothing? Or let them starve righteously? What's your point?
What people appreciated about WPA was that the government was doing *something* in a disaster. Conservatives can feel proud that they'd rather do nothing, but I'm not sure that's a winning philosophy.
The lengths people go to defend FDR where he is indefensible.
FDR was a mixed bag. Some good but a lot of bad.
Lowest of low points:
NRA (unconstitutional)
Court packing attempt
Cartelizing
Best points:
Getting money supply to expand a bit. This did more to help recovery than just about anything else they tried and this one almost seemed to happen as an after thought.
FDIC. Helped restore confidence.
FDR was not a socialist. Some of his guys were but he wasn't. He was rather un-ideological about the matter. What he was, however, was inconsistent with policy which was bad for business climate certainty so investment could happen in full force again. Along the way, a few things did help but this was mashed together with a lot of bad ideas. Intent and results are not the same thing.
I think libertarians have gone a little crazzier than usual, what with the perceived repudiation at the polls of all they stand for. I see that John V has fled economistsview again after being schooled again, for example, and after being rather nasty. Oh well, at least he has dropped the pretense of being moderate, center-right.
Personally, I don't understand what's up with these types. From a libertarian perspective, Obama has McCain beat all the way. I _had_ thought that libertarians were against foreign wars costing trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives being fought for no good purpose, against government surveillance of private citizens, etc. Iow, on any realistic difference, Obama is much more for personal rights and freedoms. As far as money being spent, well, they're both going to do a lot of that.
My conclusion is that in the final analysis, libertarians really aren't all that much about personal freedoms. They have evolved, these latter day saints, into being Republicans without the social issues baggage or the religious entanglements.
Are you guys really interested in getting to the bottom of the matter, or are you more interested in metaphorically smashing somebody's head into a mirror? Honestly, where's your sang-froid here?
Here's the sum of the past conversation:
A sampling issue prevents there being an indisputable measure of unemployment during the '30s. There are two different time series, and depending on how you define the series context there was either a mild recovery or not. But it was hardly a return to normal in any case, if you take normal to be any other year (or, for that matter, any other recession year) during the 20th century.
If we argue solely on the points by the authors, we're basically just arguing about (a) A sampling methodology, and (b) An extremely subjective argument of what counted as a recovery against the worst conditions in memory. So how about we just say "unemployment sucked" during the 30s and there wasn't anything that would count as a full recovery during that time by our standards?
Though that's not good enough for those of you baying for blood and fixing to call somebody a liar or dishonest.
So Kyle, if I say that at sunrise the temperature was below freezing and that at sunset the temperature remained below freezing, that's a completely accurate description, even if at noon the recorded temperature got up to forty-five degrees?
I know you don't believe that.
Oh, and btw, the descriptions are different enough that mathematicians have a name for them, and they are very important differences indeed: in the case where employment dropped, then rose again(as an example), that is modeled by by a convex function. If this is not the case, we say (what else) that the function is not convex. This distinction is just a leetle important, mathematically speaking ;-)
I see that John V has fled economistsview again after being schooled again, for example, and after being rather nasty. Oh well, at least he has dropped the pretense of being moderate, center-right.
What on earth are you talking about? on all counts.
I post on economistsview here and there. Just posted there several times over the last few days. And no, it wasn't nasty. And no, I wasn't schooled. You're projecting something...perhaps belligerence. What's your problem?
And what pretense are you talking about? Center-right? Where do you get that from?
One question for SoV and some of the others: is your only issue REALLY that the author used the word "remained"?
Look, I'll grant you that (i) you can argue with the cherry picking of the year used (shocking, really, in an editorial) and (ii) the choice of "remained" wasn't probably the most precise or best.
But is that enough call the WSJ a LIAR? Maybe it's just me, but that's a pretty big charge to level at someone. And would you really have just let this slide by if the WSJ had used "was" instead of "remained"? For some reason, doubt it.
In fact, I tend to believe that if the topic was something else, say deaths in Iraq, you'd be singing a different tune. I mean, if an editorial in the NY Times said something like:
"Even after throwing billions of dollars into the surge over the past X months, military and civilian deaths last month REMAINED Y, the same as they were X months ago" [without any mention of deaths decreasing for several months in the interim]
I think you would think that was a valid data point in an argument of whether the surge worked....and I'd agree. And I sincerely doubt you'd be pouncing on the use of the word "remained" in a rush to call the NYT editorial board liars. In fact, I think you'd think those that were making that argument were being a bit loony......and I'd agree.
SoV= what happens when drunk college kids who run the College Democrats try to argue their simpering backwards logic with adults. They stamp their feet, throw a tantrum, focus on individual words to try to shift the issue, and then run away and give up.
Go try bullying some college girl into having an abortion, dick.
Well, spider, I guess you could say that it's not the crime, it's the coverup. The right-wing WSJ editorial page lies about historical facts to bolster an ideological case; there's a shocker.
The problem is when you see these conservative\libertarian types rushing to the WSJ's defense (I'm guessing this has something to do with the election.) over something so indefensible; to retain any sort of credibility, they would have been far better served to say that yes, the WSJ did lie, but what can you expect from that particular organ? It would even have been okay to note that even though the editorial did contain lies, that by no means implies that FDR's policies did not exacerbate the depression (and I would agree.) But that's not what happened, was it?
Now as to this:
In fact, I tend to believe that if the topic was something else, say deaths in Iraq, you'd be singing a different tune. I mean, if an editorial in the NY Times said something like:
"Even after throwing billions of dollars into the surge over the past X months, military and civilian deaths last month REMAINED Y, the same as they were X months ago" [without any mention of deaths decreasing for several months in the interim]
And there you'd be way, way, way wrong. You may not know this, but I've been teaching mathematics for many years, and in fact am about two years away from getting my PhD in the subject (at a rather advanced age, sadly.) Believe it or not, there are significant numbers of people who think the facts really matter, especially if they are amenable to some sort of numerical encoding.
If someone tried to pull the trick you mention above, about neglecting to mention that the death rate had significantly decreased before rising again, yes, I would be upset. Very upset. This is withholding data. In particular, I'd like to know why the rate increased after decreasing for so long, and if this was just chance, or if there was an underlying causal explanation.
If you don't like the scientific take (we are talking about economics as if it is a science, right?), think of a case where a prosecutor deliberately withholds exculpatory evidence from the lawyer for the defense. Not right, eh?
I think you would think that was a valid data point in an argument of whether the surge worked....and I'd agree. And I sincerely doubt you'd be pouncing on the use of the word "remained" in a rush to call the NYT editorial board liars. In fact, I think you'd think those that were making that argument were being a bit loony......and I'd agree.
NO. This is nothing more than the 'they do it too' defense, or more precisely, the 'they would do it too, if they were in a similar position' defense. No, this is nothing more than speculation. Yes, we know that one party has done this; that in no implies that another one would behave in the same way. Believe it or not, when people like me charge that the facts simply don't matter to libertarians\conservatives, and that we are outraged at this sort of argumentation, we really do mean it. Rest assured, if I saw someone who you think is 'on my side' (I'm not a liberal) pulling the same stunt, I'd be just as loud, and just as sneering at the crudity.
1. Yes, SoV, I'm sure you're a well-honed math teacher only a few years away from a PhD. Because the credentials burnished by an anonymous internet poster in an attempt to use such credentials to sway an argument are never suspect.
How's that hangover, frat boy?
2. SoV, I know you're not too good at understanding logic, so I'll clarify the point for you:
spider was taking the logic of your argument and applying it to a situation where the desired outcome for you required the rejection of your logic. It's not a "they do it too" argument; it's the "your passion for your argument's logic is wholly based upon your desired outcome; if your logic where applied in a situation where you desired the opposite outcome, you would reject such logic as out of hand and loony."
When you get to Junior year, try a philosophy course.
Of course, this assumes you'd agree with his hypothetical, but given the partisan nature of the postings here, its not an out of ahnd assumption.
I'm sick of people mistaking "comparison" arguments with "exaggeration" and "desired outcome reversal" arguments. Shows a lack of subtely and intelligence.
Is there a libertarian, anywhere, who actually physically works for a living under their “preferred” economic system, or are they all just parlor pinks when it comes to rugged self-reliance?
I mean, writing for the Atlantic - or George Mason - is not exactly carving a homestead out of the Antarctic wilderness…
*giggle*
oh frat boy, your attempts at condenscation are amusing. Nothing like a college kid with an overdeveloped online ego.
I see you couldn't respond to my demonstration of spider's argument; I'll assume it went over your wittle head. Don't worry, though; the beer pong game starts in an hour.
btw. Megan, Alex, all you other libertarians . . . this guy is on _your_ side.
How tribal. Why does this whole idea even matter?
And which side would that be anyway? The side you are not on?
Funny, just before I read that, my conservative republican brother was just in my office. He was flipping through the channels and stopped on CNN during an Obama conversation and started railing against the guy with a bunch of nonsense and I defended Obama. I had to. He was wrong. Then he looks at me and says "Well, I hope you're right about your guy". I then reiterated what I told him on election night: "I didn't vote for either of them". He then something to effect of
---you preferred him to McCain...same thing---
I just chuckled. Then I read that quote of yours above and just chuckled some more. Same narrow black and white partisan view flipped the other way.
John V, don't bother with SoV. He's already throwing out unverifiable credentials to justify his argument. What's next? His thrilling, unverifiable account of insider status in the Obama administration?
btw. Megan, Alex, all you other libertarians . . . this guy is on _your_ side.
How tribal. Why does this whole idea even matter?
And which side would that be anyway? The side you are not on?
Sigh. Yet more illogic, the same sort of illogic that got you trounced over at economistsview. To a accuse a man of popery does not make one a Baptist. To note that conservatives/libertarians are intensely tribal creatures - it's what got them into yet another jam after all - does not imply that the observer is himself a member of another tribe (at least, a tribe of the same sort.)
Now. The WSJ or any other entity is free to dilate upon any topic at length. They are free to use whatever methods of persuasion they wish, whatever tactics. What convinces people like me is facts and figures. Testable, falsifiable hypotheses. Not detestable rhetoric. Not lies, neither of omission, nor of implication, nor the more direct sort. And people that stick up for that sort of thing? Argue that it's not big deal even if it is "technically" (you can always hear the quotes when they say that) an 'untruth', 'exaggeration' (they also tend use cute diminutives that downplay the word 'lie'). . . but that everybody does it, including 'your' side? I do not hold them in high esteem. To put it mildly.
I love SoV. Give me some of that frat boy logic, kid. You're doing a great service here.
"To note that conservatives/libertarians are intensely tribal creatures."
---I'm glad btoh conservatives and libertarians are the same in your book. But liberals are not---they never act tribally.
"- it's what got them into yet another jam after all "
---Got proof of this? What exactly are you trying to say? That its "tribalism" that caused the Republican losses? Not, say, an unpopular president and a bad economy?
And what of the "tribalism" of blacks voting en masse for Obama, despite 90% of blacks being pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and for school choice? But they're part of the "liberal" party, so it doesn't count.
"Argue that it's not big deal even if it is "technically" (you can always hear the quotes when they say that) an 'untruth', 'exaggeration' (they also tend use cute diminutives that downplay the word 'lie')"
---right. because exaggerations are same as outright lies. always.
". . . but that everybody does it, including 'your' side? "
--as already explained, SoV, spider was taking the logic of your argument and applying it to a situation where the desired outcome for you required the rejection of your logic. It's not a "they do it too" argument; it's the "your passion for your argument's logic is wholly based upon your desired outcome; if your logic where applied in a situation where you desired the opposite outcome, you would reject such logic as out of hand and loony.
"So Kyle, if I say that at sunrise the temperature was below freezing and that at sunset the temperature remained below freezing, that's a completely accurate description, even if at noon the recorded temperature got up to forty-five degrees?
I know you don't believe that."
- SoV
NO. This is nothing more than the 'poorly contextualized analogy' defense, or more precisely, the 'dishonest attempt at reductio ad absurdum' defense. No, this is even less useful than speculation. Believe it or not, when people like me charge that honest debate simply doesn't matter to contrarians, and that we are outraged at this sort of argumentation, we really do mean it.
The quote that is being debated is:
"As late as 1938, after almost a decade of governmental 'pump priming,' ALMOST one out of five workers remained unemployed"
Emphasis mine.
It is accurate and fair to characterize six years in which unemployment went 25%-22%-20%-17%-14%-19% as a period in which almost one out of five workers remained unemployed.
psst, frat boy--John V was asking you what side you were on. He was...ahem...questioning which side you were on....but I suppose that counts as illogic in your book.
That entire first paragraph is almost unaddressable. First, I already asked you what you were talking about with respect to economistsview and you still haven't answered.
Secondly, you took "tribal" and totally applied it in a way I did not intend (and you know it)...and in doing so, you totally ignored the point I really made.
Maybe you think this angry lashing and baiting is amusing or fulfilling. I don't. So unless you want to engage what I really said, I'm done here. I got better things I can do...
"As late as 1938, after almost a decade of governmental 'pump priming,' ALMOST one out of five workers remained unemployed"
Emphasis mine.
It is accurate and fair to characterize six years in which unemployment went 25%-22%-20%-17%-14%-19% as a period in which almost one out of five workers remained unemployed.
Posted by MikeF
Note that I didn't force you to post this; you did it of your own free will. Y'know, when I go on about numeracy vs blind partisanship, it might be helpful to actually run the numbers instead of merely eyeballing them. Whatever, I think this last bit of idiocy shows we're done here. Well, not quite:
New Deal economics
Everybody’s talking new New Deal these days — and, predictably, the FDR-haters are out in force, with all the usual claims about FDR having actually made the Great Depression worse. (To the right, way back when, FDR was “That Man.” Now Obama is “that one.” Interesting.)
Eric Rauchway is all over this. Basically, the anti-FDR argument on the data is based on (a) considering people employed by the WPA “unemployed” (even though they were getting paid, and building public works that are in use to this day) plus (b) always focusing on 1938 — the year in which the economy suffered a serious setback from the progress of the previous four years.
Let me offer two pictures, beyond what Eric provides, to clarify things.
But what does a Nobel(-like) Prize-winning economist know, compared to the likes of Megan, Alex, David, JohnV, Basic, et al?
Frat boy, there's no convincing you with facts.
You've decided that anyone disagreeing with you is lying, come heck or high water.
MikeF pointed out that we were arguing about a quote's reliance on numbers. Providing those numbers, MikeF showed that the statement about those numbers was accurate and fair.
You, on the other hand, attack the numbers themselves as being false. But that wasn't the argument.
Frat boy, your method of argument is false and disingenuous. Its equivalent of someone arguing "according to Baseball Prospectus, player X hit .310 for 6 years." And you, frat boy, countering that, "you're lying. that's not a fair characterization." then your opponent provides the numbers he relied on. Your response, "Well, they aren't accurate, so its lying."
MikeF isn't lying in his characterization.
Relying on numbers you believe are true to come to a fair conclusion isn't lying.
go back to the Young Democrats, boy. They might listen to this crap.
You suck. Are the next 4 years really all gonna be this bad?
Please move to a conservative area so that you can get some conservative friends and then get in petty arguments with them and merrily link to things that screw with their world-view - your posts the last few days have been so asinine.
MikeF pointed out that we were arguing about a quote's reliance on numbers. Providing those numbers, MikeF showed that the statement about those numbers was accurate and fair.
You, on the other hand, attack the numbers themselves as being false. But that wasn't the argument.
Chuckle. Keep posting, Basic. The point - which goes completely over your head - is that those numbers support me. But you completely miss this because you don't actually manipulate the numbers, you just eyeball them. You people really are the no-nothing party.
Joey? Why don't you move on to Powerline or Hayek, some place where they have a full-on case of RDS? Obviously if a Nobel prize winning economists opinion is trumped by someone like Tabarrok, you really are unmoored.
scentofviolets, all insults aside, what are you not getting?
You're hung up about a characterization.
Apaprently, averages don't work with you.
If, in a baseball player's 6 year career (let's say he's a pitcher, a group that doesn't usually hit well), his average in those 6 years is: .250-.220-.200-.170-.140-.190, in that order. Career average: .195.
The player is up for free agency. A reporter characterizes the player as being "a pitcher who, after 6 years and a lot of surgery, remains a good hitting pitcher, hitting safely 1 out of every 5 times."
Now, if you were reading that, you'd say that's fair. His average is .195 for 6 years. However, the counter argument here is that he (the pitcher) hasn't hit .200 in 3 years, and in fact dipped well below it a year ago. But the average remains, for the same player, as about 1 in 5. In fact, only 1 year remains an outlier.
But the reporter's characterization is fair. Had he said "almost 1 in 4" then your arrogance and freak out would be justified. But that's not what you get here.
So please, take your outrage for true problem statistical analyses. If FDR's going to get praise for the economy, he also gets the blame, and he can't shovel off the 1938 recession and then get all the pats for 1933-1937.
Ah, I see the problem. I'm pretty sure I would compute the career batting average by looking at the total number of times the player has hit safely over the six year period, and divide by the total number of at bats over that same six year period. (because the player could have had 4 at bats the first year you mention, and 250 at bats when he hits .140) I think, but am not sure, that this is how they compute career averages on baseball cards... So your analogy is a poor one.
Consider the following analogy: I have a curve y=x^2 (that is read "y equal to x squared" for non-LaTex folks). At x = -1 and at x = 1, the y values are the same. Is it true to claim "As we move from -1 to 1, the y value remains equal to 1" ? I would claim no, since this function has a local (in fact global) minimum at x = 0, but the quoted sentence leaves the impression that the function is a constant function.
I wonder why the WSJ editorial page would say something like that? Seems like a sloppy choice of words.
Bob,
It is assumed that the pitcher had the same number of at-bats per year in my analogy. And I don't believe I gave hint to the contrary. But feel free to invent facts that back up your assertion. So I'm pretty sure my analogy is on here.
Quite frankly, snarkiness on how batting averages are calculated might show how your criticism fails. Are you saying 1938 should count less? or 1937 count more than the others? Were there more "at bats" in unemployment in 1937 than the other years? Pray tell, Bob.
And Bob, there is no negative number squaring in our meager argument. There are only positive numbers, as in how far above zero in a given year the unemployment is. So, of course, I'm pretty sure your analogy is a poor one.
If you want to use your analogy, you should state your assumptions. I see no reason to modify my criticism of your batting average analogy.
Re: the curve y = x^2. The fact that there are two roots of unity has nothing to do with my point. Think carefully about how this curve behaves between -1 and 1 (perhaps draw its graph). I trust that you'll see my point. It would be fair to say of our curve that y was equal to 1 when x = -1 and when x = 1, but it would be mathematically wrong to claim that the y value "remained" at 1 as x moves from -1 to 1 (which is analogous to what the WSJ is saying). In fact, to make this claim about the curve y = x^2 would be the same as saying that the function f(x) = x^2 was constant over the interval [-1,1], which is obviously false... To make myself more clear: either the editorial writer simply chose the wrong words, or was trying to leave the impression that the unemployment rate was constant from 1933 to 1938. You can choose whichever interpretation suits you.
It would be fair to say, for example, "The unemployment rate in 1938 was about the same as the unemployment rate in the year 1935," since this seems to be true. I don't think that you can conclude "The New Deal did not work" from this statement, however. This is, I suspect, the real reason why the editorialist chose to use the word "remain."
Wow, Bob, you "see no reason to modify" your criticism. That's really a dumb thing to say, considering I just belied the basis of your whole attack. So you're essentially arguing the equivalent that you aren't sure what the average gravitational acceleration rate is considering we don't know if gravity actually acts uniformly in a vaccuum in my hypothesis. Like I said, though, feel free to ignore this and completely stick your head in the sand. We are living in Obama's Brave New World, after all.
As to your "draw a graph, son" argument: bitch, please. As I pointed out, arguing that a U-Shaped curve is some "analogous" to the graph of unemployment rates in the Great Depression is very, very poor. Your analogy is an epic fail. The 2 graphs are not similar. 5 out of 6 years of this period remained within the approximation he gave, and the final year saw a jump in unemployment that erased previous gains. FDR's policies failed to get the economy better than almost 1 in 5 out of work; it remained in that range.
The editorial writer was not "trying to leave the impression that the unemployment rate was constant from 1933 to 1938." He said that it remained that almost 1 in 5 were still unemployed--the unemployment rate had bounced back in 1938 to an area in that range, and the average (well, unless you tell me about this fascinating "at bats" argument you've got, how 1937 counts more than 1934 or 1938) sustains his point. Nor did he choose the wrong words; mincing, yes, but not wrong. Yes, not the same 1 in 5 were unemployed in 1938 as compared to 1932 or 3, but please, whether bubba or bill loses his job, they're both equally unemployed.
FDR was attempting to lower unemployment to acceptable levels. Despite his work, even by 1938, it remained high, similar to when he took office: 1 in 5 workers remained unemployed.
Gosh, man, by your argument, the pitcher from my analogy (remember him?) his no longer a 1/5 hitter, because he had 1 off year, despite the bounce back last year. Like I said, remains is weaselly, but not wrong.
Perhaps a simpler exercise then: simply connect the dots in either unemployment estimation (the one Prof. Tabarrok uses, or the one Prof. Rauchway uses). Is what you notice consistent with the statement "The unemployment rate remained the same over the period from 1933 to 1938"? Do they look like the u-shaped curve that you malign, or do they look horizontal?
On the other hand, it is probably easier (and funnier for me) if you continue to play dumb about the basic shape of the graphs at the center of this dispute.
Re: the batting average argument
Nowhere in your analogy did you point out the assumption that you were making: namely, the pitcher has the same number of at bats every year. This is kind of important when computing the total batting average. Probably, you know this, but somehow forgot to mention it in your analogy.
I get the idea that libertarians are supposed to dislike government interference in all things (I guess; I confess to not reading my Hayek), but I don't figure this FDR obsession (and more generally, the obsession with economics that many libertarians seem to have).
I am sympathetic to libertarian arguments about the drug war, and foreign wars in general. The reason is that the libertarian position seems to want to limit the coercive powers that governments historically abuse. (Such as search and seizure laws, laws against homosexuality, Guantanamo Bay, firearm regulation, and so on).
But what do libertarians say when government CAN do something to relieve poverty, or stabilize the economy (or what if Iraq REALLY was an ally of bin Laden, for the rightward leaning libertarians) ? Is the obsession with FDR (and the rejection of the New Deal) just a means to avoid having to consider this question?
apparently, Bobbie, you can't get the difference into your skull between averages and constants. Quite frankly, you want remains to not apply because of 1937. I suppose it would have been more accurate for the writer to say, "On the average, about 1 in 5 workers remained unemployed from 1933-1938." But we're not arguing about persuasive or weaselly language; we're arguing about outright lies. The writer did not outright lie. Period.
Never did I say it was a constant, straight line. Never did he say it either. But comapring that crap to a partially negative parabola is an outright lie. Your little X/Y graph is so out of hand as anaology here, you're pretty much damned in comparison.
And I love how you again skip by the fact that I undercut your entire criticism of my analogy. Nothing like failing to acknowledge your huge downfall in order to save face. epic. fail. Again, now that you know the facts that you pretended you didn't before, are you going to mount an argument to the analogy, or stick your head in the sand?
p.s. bobbie baby, the writer did not "conclude" from this one fact that the New Deal didn't work. he lists several factors.
But I know you tend to base arguments on one part being the whole. Logical synecdoche, right? Or did you just stop reading anything that opposed your view point and wasn't so weaselly?
And I'm one to think the New Deal did help beat the Depression! Sheesh. With all these idiotic arguments trying to rip down one writer for pointing out the failings to curb unemployment by FDR, you'd think he was saying gravity doesn't exist.
Oh, I don't know. I sort of think the graph that both Prof. Tabarrok and Rauchway use looks a little u-shaped (over certain subintervals of time, at least). Don't you think so?
Since you brought up averages, here is another exercise for you. If you wanted to graph the average value of the function that either Prof. Rauchway or Taborrok provide, what would you graph? If we let the function A = average unemployment, what would A look like? (a simpler example to figure out first: what is the average value of the function f(x) = x^2 over the interval [-1,1]. If you know what I am talking about, the previous exercise will be an extension of this idea). Would the answer you got depend somewhat on which years you decided to use as endpoints? Would the average value tell you anything about the value of the function at a specific time? All questions, I'm sure, that you can easily figure out.
Re: your analogy. I guess a drowning man (person?) latches on to any piece of debris around. Here's the thing: I'm really not convinced that you were aware of the objection I had to your analogy, though I felt in the previous post that I should give you the benefit of the doubt. Statements like "partially negative parabola" in reference to y = x^2 don't make any sense. It signals to me that you are sort of innumerate. If you are 15 or 16 years of age, that's OK. Probably less forgivable if you are a college educated adult.
On the other hand, it is possible to compute an approximation to the average value of the unemployment function just taking the average of the individual unemployment rates. The main problem is that the editorialist does not state: "The average rate of unemployment from 1933 to 1938 was twenty percent." (This statement is mathematically incorrect, by the way. The average is less that twenty percent using either definition of unemployment, provided you are looking between 1935 and 1938. If you choose other years, you get different averages).
Credit where it is due, though: your alternative wording for the editorialist is an improvement. I maintain that the author is attempting to leave the impression that unemployment was essentially constant from 1933 to 1938. This is true in exactly the same way the the value of the function f(x) = x^2 remains 1 throughout the interval [-1,1]. That is to say, it is actually false. I'm not sure what else to call this choice of words; either it's a sloppy choice of words, or the word "remained" was chosen for other reasons...
Re: arguments for/against FDR
I am far from an expert in economics. I know (or at least I think I know) that increased government spending should stimulate the economy (I thought the same thing was more or less true about money supply expansions, but Japan in the 1990s and the US now are proving to be troublesome counterexamples), all things being equal. If you want to argue that FDR was wrongheaded in his approach to economics (which in some cases, may be correct), you would be better served by heading over to the Marginal Revolution website and reading Prof. Tabarrok's latest post concerning 1930's era fiscal policy. He takes the FDR administration to task for not reversing a Hoover era tax increase. If only the good Professor been around in 1932...
Maybe you just need a better chair?
Acutally, Tabarrok is completely wrong.
Here's Rauchway's rebuttal:
Tabarrok says,
Rauchway thinks that counting people on work-relief as unemployed is a right-wing plot. If so, it is a right-wing plot that exists to this day because people who are on workfare, the modern version of work relief, are also counted as unemployed.
Here is what Weir says about that:
For 1931 to 1943, I accept Lebergott’s employment estimates as accurate, except for a major conceptual conflict regarding the classification of federal emergency relief workers. Darby challenged the standard classification followed by the census, the CPS, and Lebergott that counted such workers unemployed. Lebergott has argued eloquently that counting them as unemployed is a more accurate depiction of the failure of the private economy to generate unemployment. Margo has found that the labor supply behavior of relief workers shared some characteristics of both employed and unemployed workers, and suggests that at least some should probably be classified as employed. In the absence of a clear basis for distinguishing employed from unemployed relief workers, I agree with Darby that counting all relief workers as employed is more consistent with modern theoretical interpretations of unemployment, so I include them as government workers.
Also, Tabarrok says that Rauchway "Call[ed] someone a liar because they use a different statistic"
Rauchway's rebuttal is here:
"That’s not why I called him a liar, and Alex, you know that. The WSJ op-ed says,
As late as 1938, after almost a decade of governmental “pump priming,” almost one out of five workers remained unemployed.
There’s no sense in which this is not dishonest, for reason (1) below; reason (2) makes it merely indefensible, not dishonest.
(1) “As late as … remained” means the unemployment rate *stayed* high. The truth is, the unemployment rate was *again* high, after going significantly down 1933-37.
And the reasons it was significantly down 1933-37 almost certainly owe to intelligent government intervention—I would call it banking and monetary—by the Roosevelt White House. In other words, by part of the New Deal.
As to why it was *up* again in 1938, there are different stories about this, as I’m sure you know: Keynes blamed both Roosevelt’s fiscal stringency *and* his rhetorical excesses against bankers; modern econ historians (Lester Chandler, if memory serves) blame the Fed.
(2) The phrase “after almost a decade of governmental ‘pump priming,’” is wrong, too—maybe not so obviously wrong as to be dishonest, but it’s wronger than a careful economist or historian should be. As you know, I’m sure, E. Cary Brown long ago pointed out that the thing about fiscal policy in the New Deal was that it was never sufficient to have Keynesian effects. The implication of the WSJ op-ed is that *all this* pump priming didn’t work. The truth seems to be, there never was enough pump-priming to work."
Couldn't you do some preliminary research before linking to Tabarrok's crap?
Rauchway responded remarkably placidly and self-assuredly for someone who just got "spanked", wouldn't you say? You would have to explain how refusing to count people on work-relief is more than just an ideological predisposition to get me to care much at all about this.
Note to self: no more reading McArdle at work, even for a short break, until she learns to be a bit more careful about posting materials arousing to fetishists.
2nd note to self: you can stop thinking about her butt now. Really.
I don't get it.
So, Tabarrok is wrong because (1) the New Deal worked and (2) the New Deal didn't work?
Third note to self:
Apparently it is OK to make a bald-faced accusation of liar against somebody if the nuances of their phrasing aren't JUST SO.
rick,
So, Roosevelt created a second Great Depression after solving the first one?
"Now a lot of people remember [the WPA] as boondoggles and raking leaves," Reagan said in 1981. "Maybe in some places it was . . . . But I can take you to our town and show you things, like a riverfront that I used to hike through once that was a swamp and is now a beautiful park place built by the WPA."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/031006/670thanniv.htm
Ronald Reagan saying--in 1981, long after he had repudiated his youthful New Dealism--that what the WPA workers did was real, valuable work? (Which to me at least suggests that there is something wrong with calling them "unemployed" in the same sense as a man who loafs at home. And yes, if today's workfare workers worked full-time and built as many highways, dams, etc. as the WPA and PWA workers did in the 1930's, I wouldn't count *them* as unemployed either.) The guy was obviously some kind of Commie!
Yancey-
I don't know. You'd have to ask a scholar of the Great Depression, like, perhaps, Eric Rauchway.
Chris 0 - Did you actually read the linked post?
First off, if counting people on work-relief as unemployed is an ideological plot, it's a remarkably long-lived one as that's how we've compiled unemployment statistics for decades now.
Second, if you want to count people on work-relief as employed then get ready for 0% unemployment. The government can just give half the unemployed jobs digging ditches and the other half jobs filling them up! Presto! A magical world in which no one is ever out of work!
Surely that would cure any conceivable economic ill.
I mean, if Cool Hand Luke taught me nothing else, it was the redemptive power of meaningless work enforced by government agents. Oh wait...
It seems to me that Eric's problem wasnt one of factual accuracy, but one of rhetorical excesses. You know, kind of link writing a post about it entitled "ouch."
DLP-
Except that the WSJ did lie, by saying unemployment remained during the decade at one-fifth after the crash. The unemployment rate dropped from 32-38, which means it didn't remain at the higher level during that time, which means the WSJ lied.
rick,
I dont disagree that the wsj lied. I just think that the sort of irrational reaction people are having to Eric's text is based on the rhetorical style, rather than the factual basis, as I said. And I just noted the paralel to McArdle's own rhetorical excess, except that there is a lot less substance there.
rick, so the depression was over in 1937? '33?
Yes, it was misleading for the WSJ piece to talk only about peak unemployment, but the fact is unemployment was high (really high) throughout the decade. Why was the economy so poor at allocating resources for such a long period of time?
My hypothesis is that there was poor macro policy by both depression-era administrations. What's yours?
uhhh.....because FDR was a self-avoid socialist?
Gee.....why don't we try THAT experiment again. How bad could it possibly be? Heck, the world is game to let BO be their leader, too, right?
jwh-
Actually, FDR was a Fascist (or National Socialist).
The more I read the more I want to just lump libertarianism with things like creationism and Scientology.
Of course, the main point here is that having ~8% of the population reliant on government work programs is not, in fact, evidence of the New Deal's success - especially when that scenario exists a decade after the big stocks crash.
Megan,
Care to rebut to Dr. Rauchway?
http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/when-is-it-lying/
I think that the key comment is Charlie's:
"The growth rate of real GDP:
1933 - 1939: 6.94%
FDR (first two terms 1933 - 1941): 8.39%
Reagan (1981 - 1989): 3.52%
Clinton (1993 - 2001): 3.46%
Things were really bad when FDR took over. After 8 years things were still not good, but a whole lot better. U.S. GDP fell 20% from 1930-1933, then bottomed out, then started growing."
FDR had growth rates that not even the GOP GodKing Reagan could produce.
And in addition, we have experimental confirmation - in the late 1930's, the GOP forced a partial pull-back of the New Deal, which led to an immediate recession.
FDR save the USA, for which the Right has never forgiven him.
Posted a somewhat convincing counter-argument you agree with = spanking SOOO HARD now I guess.
My, the life of a pundit is boring. By this standard, Obama drove McCain before him and is now listening to the lamentation is his women ;-p
I'd caution someone with an MBA from wading half-cocked into a debate like this with a PhD, especially one with a PhD in the relevant subject matter. But then again McMegan also likes to pretend she's an economist so I guess my cautionary statement would probably fall on deaf ears.
"Of course, the main point here is that having ~8% of the population reliant on government work programs is not, in fact, evidence of the New Deal's success - especially when that scenario exists a decade after the big stocks crash."
Posted by MikeF
I'll swear - it's physically impossible to refute the New Deal and FDR's actions without being highly dishonest.
Just to help you on math, 1938 is nearly 'a decade after the big stocks crash', but it's only five years after the bottoming out of the economy. And by 'bottoming out of the economy' I do not mean as in a normal recession; we're not talking a percent or two decline here.
rick, I followed your link to the rebuttal and color me unimpressed. Rauchway has some funny ideas about the English language if he thinks a factually accurate statement is a lie. The funny thing is, he reworded it a bit to show how it could just be misleading, except that his reworded version had exactly the same meaning as the original.
Now, lets be honest here:
Alex Tabarrok is either an idiot or incredibly naive.
He goes on and on on the particular unemployment statistic Eric used in his post, but it is clear to anyone with half a brain that Eric's point was not about whether it was 14 or 20%, but about the trajectory. Anyone who has ever taken even a survey class on labor economics knows about the differences in how unemployment is measured and how there is no one "true" measure.
In fact, the entire point is the "remained." After all, it is less relevant, as anyone with half a brain would know, which is the true figure of unemployment in a causal argument about the effects of X on unemployment. What is more important than that is the trajectory.
And then, I am sorry, but only someone with no brain whatsoever to not notice the dishonesty that Eric is pointing to. You cannot get two high points in a trend line and say that something has "remained" high.
Eric's only problem was assuming that others without the same background in the discussion would notice that. The truth is that no one, regardless of political orientation, really cares about arcane discussions of which is the "true" series. Everyone with a modest knowledge of labor economics and ILO recommendations knows that there are advantages and disadvantages to all methods of measuring unemployment, and the key thing is using consistent data.
In that case, regardless of what data is used, it is clear that the WSJ picked two years that would fit its argument, completely ignoring the trend data before or after it.
Barry,
Please provide data, completely with descriptive statistics, correlations, and the appropriate assumptions to back up your claim that the New Deal was -the- contributing factor to ending the depression.
I don't think it can be done.
Anything more than that is just bickering about theory on both sides of the issue. I think it does make some sense that putting people to work on community service projects is both good and bad for the economy.
But the most important question I'd ask is to follow the money. Who paid to put the people to work? Not the government, they don't make money, they just take it from those who do. And I don't mean that as a slap in the face, just a matter of fact -- taxation.
So you feel it's better that the government take money from individuals who have money, and then hire people to do stuff with that money and that is better for the economy than letting the people who have and created money and value continue to do so on their own.
I read Rauchway, Tabbarok, Rauchway again, and Tabbarok again, and I think Tabbarok is correct, and more civil to boot.
Unemployment was very high, became less very high, and then was equally high again over a ten year period. This was during a period when all sorts of things were being done to bring unemployment lower. If you cannot call those efforts a "failure" I'm not sure what would constitute a "failure".
If this graph is meant to show bold, successful government action, I'd hate to see a graph of timid, unsuccessful government action
http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/when-is-it-lying/
Also, I'd count people working in Government makework schemes as being employed. My god, if we stopped counting them, the US unemployment rate would be about 30% now.
Zanon,
You are seeing the forest but missing the tree.
Eric's argument wasnt about which statistic to use, nor was he trying to provide definite proof that the new deal worked.
He was raising an issue with a WSJ editorial that said that
"As late as 1938 … almost one out of five workers remained unemployed"
Which is at least misleading. Looking at the time series, regardless of which data you use, you have a peak in unemployment in 32-33, then it falls quite a bit until 37, goes up a bit in 38 and then back again. Erik wasnt using this as proof that the new deal ended the great depression. He was using this as proof that the WSJ was intentionally misleading.
Regarding what solved the great depression, that is another argument, one which Eric would present more than just a graph to support.
What IS clear is that Alex either misread or misrepresented Eric's point to be one about which statistic to use, which it wasnt, and that unemployment had not "remained" at a certain level by 37... it had gone down quite a bit and then up a bit. What caused it is another matter entirely, but it is clear that WSJ's editorial was not entirely honest.
this discussion seems really dumb. as someone else asked, is he saying there were two great depressions? if not, whatever was done between the two peaks did not solve the unemployment problem, and unemployment "remained" high after X years. perhaps not incredibly precise, might have been preferable to say it returned to high levels or somesuch, but the point was that the problem had obviously not been solved despite actions taken during intervening period.
Actually, I would rather see her vaunted economic libertarianism brought to bear on what to do about the Auto makers rather than carrying someone else's intellectual water about the vagaries of the Great Depression.
It seems to me that someone at the Atlantic is going sit in silence until a decision is made about whether or not to prop up these companies and then pick that decision apart ex post facto and talk about how dumb the Democrats are.
DLP: OK, I'll try to see the forest.
FDR did all kinds of things as part of the New Deal. Some of them were helpful. Some of them were unhelpful. Some of them had no impact at all on the economy, but set up all kinds of other things that can be deemed positive or negative depending on one's ideological beliefs.
The politicization of the New Deal is like this roving lobotomy that makes people believe they can get by with half a brain. A terrible shame given how unique the Depression was, how important it is that it must be avoided, and how we might be in a similar situation right now.
In terms of which statistic to use, I personally think that work-fare should count as employment, or should be removed from unemployment counts altogether (as military employment is, I believe). I would be quite happy if the Government offered employment to everybody, no questions asked, so work-fare on a national scale.
As for Eric's graph -- in my eyes it shows 10+ years of unacceptably high unemployment, in spite of dramatic actions by the Government. My interpretation of this is that no one really knows what caused the Depression, and so no one is really sure what we can do now to avoid another. Scary stuff.
If you think an unemployment level of 25% going to 15% and back to 20% as being "too high", "much better", "also high, but less high" then that's fine. I see "unacceptably high", "unacceptably high", and "unacceptably high". We can certainly agree to disagree whether there is a material difference between a 25% unemployment rate, and a 15% unemployment rate that began deteriorating again almost immediately.
Your opinion of how acceptable a 1-year unemployment rate of 15% is will determine whether you think the WSJ article was unreasonable or not.
You can say that WSJ was wrong, and Eric was right. I see a decade that I am very glad I did not have to live through.
Pfister,
Let the companies that are bankrupting themselves with bad business decisions made years ago and continuing to be made up to this day bankrupt themselves.
Is that a bad policy? Yes a whole lot of people -may- lose their jobs. But their jobs aren't paying for themselves anyway eh?
Why is it Toyota or BMW has no problem making money making cars in the US? Maybe because they put their factories in states (generally the south) where the workers are happy to trade a honest days hard work for pay.
People who have become conditioned to look at their boss and question how much "the man" makes and demand they get paid more of their fair share have a good way of ruining a company.
I see no reason to continue to allow all our tax dollars to pay for:
-generous pensions demanded by greedy workers and agreed to by short-sighted management
-inflexible manufacturing solutions that do not respond rapidly to changes in demand.
I'd comment a bit on the auto companies turning themselves into financing companies, but the fact is they have a TON of cash on hand. The problem is they are burning through it like crazy because payroll/benefits are high and sales are low.
Unfortunately I have full faith that Obama will screw up and bail these guys out rather than letting them fall apart and have some other company swoop in and pick up the pieces.
I hope it's just a bad phase at blogging you're going through Megan.
The state of your butt apart, do you have thoughts, of your own, to contribute re: Rauchway Vs. Tabarrok - which, to me, is far from decided either way- or do we presume you stand by Tabarrok, with nothing to add?
Looking at the time series, regardless of which data you use, you have a peak in unemployment in 32-33, then it falls quite a bit until 37, goes up a bit in 38 and then back again. Erik wasnt using this as proof that the new deal ended the great depression. He was using this as proof that the WSJ was intentionally misleading
Here are the actual figures (I added two breaks)
1926 1.8
1927 3.3
1928 4.2
1929 3.2
1930 8.9
1931 16.8
1932 24.1
1933 25.2
1934 22.0
1935 20.3
1936 17.0
1937 14.3
1938 19.1
1939 17.2
1940 14.6
1941 9.9
1942 4.7
1943 1.9
Yes, unemployment fell from 1933 to 1937. But it remained absolutely atrocious; it did not recover until America entered WW2. The WSJ's point was that unemployment had obviously not recovered even after six years of the New Deal, and that argument is irrefutable given the data. The WSJ is not being "misleading", and they quite certainly weren't lying. Their specific claim (the unemployment rate) was true accurate, and their larger point (that the economy still hadn't recovered) was true as well, since the economy didn't recover until 1942.
Color me unimpressed by Rauchway's reply.
Did the WSJ cherry-pick 1938 to because it was a local maximum? Undoubtedly. But that doesn't change the truth of their core point, which his graph in fact supports: after a decade of unprecedented government intervention, the unemployment rate had fallen from its ~25% peak only down to the ~15-20% range. When one compares that with the recovery times of other historical depressions, it is difficult to argue convincingly that the interventions can be definitively credited with any of the recovery at all.
The only way to get a really impressive drop down to the ~10% level is to "cook the books" by counting make-work as employment, which Rauchway did without calling out this rather significant manipulation in his original attack on the WSJ.
Is this where libertarians jump the shark, and they just plain don't give a damn about ordinary meanings of ordinary words?
Alex is wrong. Period. Eric is right. Period.
The _only_ way to go against this is to say that unemployment remained at or above 20% the whole time; that's what Eric is griping about, explicitly:
And rather than some academic argument about which statistics to use, what Alex is claiming the brouha is about, Eric states, very explicitly:
So, if anyone wants to say that this is not an example of WSJ editorial perfidy because unemployment really never did get much lower than 20% during that time period, fine. Bring on your facts and figures.
But if people - and we know who and what they are - are going to say that 'technically' unemployment did decline to around 14% . . . but that this is still pretty bad. Well, that's just plain dishonest.
Dishonesty which can't be waved away with feigned ignorance. As I said, I think libertarians just plain don't give a damn anymore, and this bland stating of lies, and then denying that they are lies is just their little way of spewing venom, their version of an FU as it were.
What a classy group.
Oh, and:
'Remain' does not mean 'things were one way, then they changed, then they went back to the other way'. So, reality has a liberal bias. Logic has a liberal bias. And now we find that dictionary definitions have a liberal bias.
I wonder where all this is going to end.
David Wright, Zanon, Dan,
Regardless of what you think the new deal achieved or not, that is NOT what Eric is discussing.
If you want to argue that unemployment fell slower than it would otherwise have fallen because of the new deal, fine, that is one argument you can try to make. But that argument is both quantitatively and qualitatively different from saying that the unemployment did not decrease at all. And THAT is what the WSJ is trying to say. You really have to stretch what they "meant" to argue that they were trying to claim that unemployment did not fall as fast as it should.
You are getting ahead of yourselves: whether the new deal "cured" the great depression or not was not argued in any part of Erik's text (and even if it didnt it certainly does not follow from that that keynesianism is wrong). It might have done more harm than good, but WSJ's editorial is still, at the very least, incredibly misleading.
Furthermore, while some ambiguity in Erik's first post might have mislead Alex and Megan, Erik has further clarified his position, and if Alex and Megan do not retract and/or modify their posts, it will simply demonstrate an unwillingness to engage in honest debate.
Just because you agreed with the WSJ's conclusions does not mean that the data and arguments they made are correct. It is clear beyond a doubt that 1 in 5 had not "remained" unemployed by 1938 (remained the key word- 1 in 5 were unemployed that year, but that was after an increase of 5% in a year), and that they carefully picked 1938 for effect. Of course, they could, as you have, argue that the recovery was too slow, or not in any way smooth, and that there severe bumps in the road, but they cannot mislead the public by saying unemployment figures "remained" a certain value when they didnt.
SOV,
See two comments above yours for the facts you asked for.
As for when the Great Depression ended, it is a fallacy to look at the unemployment data anyway. Look at personal consumption. WWII lowered unemployment (vast increases in the numbers of soldiers and workers turning out weapons of war for the government do this quite effectively), but the citizenry were still living in extreme deprivation compared to the decade of the 1920s right through to the years after the war. The depression ended after the war when the worst aspects of the New Deal had been abandoned, the debts that had initiated the Great Depression had been finally been cleared and accepted, and an argument can definitely be made that the uncertainty engendered by Roosevelt's penchant for interventionism ended with his death in 1945.
Do you really think that people like Dan, or Zanon, or David - or Alex or Megan - actually care that people think they're dishonest?
No, this is just a little tribal signaling in the wake of a rather upsetting event. An "I've got your back" sort of thing.
And for what it is worth, the average unemployment rate for the years of the Roosevelt administration from his first election to the start of WWII in Europe is 19+%.
SOV, look at the original post to which Alex responded. Someone reading it with the "ordinary meaning of ordinary" words in mind would never guess that Rauchway's argument with the WSJ turns on the use of the word "remained" or their choice of the year 1938. "Remained" is not bolded in his post. He does not mention the cherry-picking of 1938. Instead, he has many links to and a graph of his revised unemployment series showing unemployment falling to ~10% in the late 30s. He doesn't mention that this series depends on the assumption that make-work counts as employment, or even that other series exist. Any person reading that post with the "ordinary meaning of ordinary words" in mind would presume that his core argument was that unemployment was ~10%, not ~20%, in the late 30s.
Only after Alex called him out did he decide that his beef wasn't with unemployment being ~20% in 1938, but with the word "remained" and the cherry-picking of that year.
The facts, on which you and I and Rauchway can presumably agree, are that unemployment as usually defined had declined from ~25% into the ~15-20% range by the late 30s. (Your choice of the very lowest point must surely count as just as "dishonest" as the WSJ's choice of the very highest point. As the graph in Rauchway's second post makes clear, unemployment bounched around in that range for 5 years.)
Should those facts count as a success for the new deal? An honest answer is: we can't say. Unemployment had gone down some, but it would have gone down some without the new deal, and it was still well above the full employment level.
David, I _quoted_ from the piece you're linking to. Nor did I say anything about declining to some specific figure and arguing either the merits of the derivation of the figure.
That's just plain - here's the word again lying. I would have thought the fact that his graph shows that, yes unemployment was about 20% in 1938, the same one-in-five the WSJ uses would have made it immediately obvious that it was not a quarrel over a choice of metric. I would also have thought that the graph shows that unemployment did not remain at or above 20% during the intervening years would have been a bit of a clue.
In fact, I'm very certain that you saw this.
Now.
You can say: I. Was. Wrong. Or you can keep being a nasty little twit. I vote for the nasty little twit. You don't have a leg to stand on, and I don't particularly care what names you elect to call me after this exchange. Because you clearly have no intent of ever being honest. And I could care less what a person who's behaving like you are thinks.
My God, my fourteen-year-old daughter has more integrity than this when talking about her worst enemies.
Update: Looking at the graph again, I see that I was wrong; my eyes are getting old. Yes, he is using a different figure for unemployment, even though the shape of the curve is the same.
I'll say it once again: I was wrong about the employment figures on the graph.
See? This really isn't all that hard to do. I wasn't immediately engulfed in flames, nothing dramatic. Why people like you can't do this is a mystery.
SOV: No, in the post I linked to, Rauchway's original post, his graph shows unemployment at 12% in 1938, and even under 10% in 1937. Please go take a look. Only in his second post does he change to a graph, using a different series, that admits the truth of the WSJ figure for 1938.
Now do I get to call you a "nasty little twit" who has "lo let to stand on" and who has "no intent of ever being honest"?
As a matter of fact, no, you don't: I admitted I was wrong, you see. With absolutely no problems.
And you won't. Ever. Even when you know you're wrong. As you surely do now, and as I see on other comment threads people have pointed out multiple, multiple, multiple times.
Now, you may think it unfair that when I was wrong, it was wrong in a way that didn't detract in the slightest from my point, so that I wasn't giving anything of value up. Well, that's just tough.
That's the big difference between people like you and me: I can modify hypotheses in the face of new data. You . . . cannot. Or maybe will not is a better descriptor, but if so, that makes you more culpable, not less.
SOV: Thanks for the update. Perhaps next time we can do that without the name-calling.
David Wright has it exactly correct.
Here's another minor point. Rauchway is wrong about something else, the HSUS he cites, the millennial edition, is not an official publication of the Bureau of the Census - it’s a book published by Cambridge University Press. No doubt it is a good book but Tabarrok is correct that the series he cites is the official series.
You want to disagree with the definitions of quite simple words John? Here it is again:
To repeat an earlier post of mine, 'Remain' does not mean 'things were one way, then they changed, then they went back to the other way'. That is not a special reading, it is not an idiosyncratic reading, it is not a reading based on anything but 'the ordinary meaning of ordinary words'.
"The government can just give half the unemployed jobs digging ditches and the other half jobs filling them up! Presto! A magical world in which no one is ever out of work!"
Doesn't that describe the Bush administration? Paying folks to dig deep holes and then paying other folks even more to fill them in again? Except they are economic or policy or strategic holes, not literal holes. And yet, more people are out of work, regardless.
Personally, I never heard a "Greatest Generation" person speak disrespectfully of the WPA or consider it anything less than a godsend that did a lot of good. Maybe there were some boondoggles I've never heard of, but there are also a lot of parks and roads and schools we've been enjoying for 70 years. There was a significant amount of clearly valuable work left behind, we still use it today. Only someone fairly unfamiliar with the program would compare it to digging holes and filling them in again.
And if that circular project was the best work you had available, so that someone could eat their free bread with pride after a day's work, instead of just taking a handout, then what's so bad about that? You'd rather just give them the bread for nothing? Or let them starve righteously? What's your point?
What people appreciated about WPA was that the government was doing *something* in a disaster. Conservatives can feel proud that they'd rather do nothing, but I'm not sure that's a winning philosophy.
:)
The lengths people go to defend FDR where he is indefensible.
FDR was a mixed bag. Some good but a lot of bad.
Lowest of low points:
NRA (unconstitutional)
Court packing attempt
Cartelizing
Best points:
Getting money supply to expand a bit. This did more to help recovery than just about anything else they tried and this one almost seemed to happen as an after thought.
FDIC. Helped restore confidence.
FDR was not a socialist. Some of his guys were but he wasn't. He was rather un-ideological about the matter. What he was, however, was inconsistent with policy which was bad for business climate certainty so investment could happen in full force again. Along the way, a few things did help but this was mashed together with a lot of bad ideas. Intent and results are not the same thing.
You can say that WSJ was wrong, and Eric was right. I see a decade that I am very glad I did not have to live through.
Posted by zanon | November 7, 2008 7:18 PM
I wish it on you and all libertarians. No doubt your Galt-like instincts will see you through and then you can buy yourself a harem.
I think libertarians have gone a little crazzier than usual, what with the perceived repudiation at the polls of all they stand for. I see that John V has fled economistsview again after being schooled again, for example, and after being rather nasty. Oh well, at least he has dropped the pretense of being moderate, center-right.
Personally, I don't understand what's up with these types. From a libertarian perspective, Obama has McCain beat all the way. I _had_ thought that libertarians were against foreign wars costing trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives being fought for no good purpose, against government surveillance of private citizens, etc. Iow, on any realistic difference, Obama is much more for personal rights and freedoms. As far as money being spent, well, they're both going to do a lot of that.
My conclusion is that in the final analysis, libertarians really aren't all that much about personal freedoms. They have evolved, these latter day saints, into being Republicans without the social issues baggage or the religious entanglements.
Nothing more.
Are you guys really interested in getting to the bottom of the matter, or are you more interested in metaphorically smashing somebody's head into a mirror? Honestly, where's your sang-froid here?
Here's the sum of the past conversation:
A sampling issue prevents there being an indisputable measure of unemployment during the '30s. There are two different time series, and depending on how you define the series context there was either a mild recovery or not. But it was hardly a return to normal in any case, if you take normal to be any other year (or, for that matter, any other recession year) during the 20th century.
If we argue solely on the points by the authors, we're basically just arguing about (a) A sampling methodology, and (b) An extremely subjective argument of what counted as a recovery against the worst conditions in memory. So how about we just say "unemployment sucked" during the 30s and there wasn't anything that would count as a full recovery during that time by our standards?
Though that's not good enough for those of you baying for blood and fixing to call somebody a liar or dishonest.
So Kyle, if I say that at sunrise the temperature was below freezing and that at sunset the temperature remained below freezing, that's a completely accurate description, even if at noon the recorded temperature got up to forty-five degrees?
I know you don't believe that.
Oh, and btw, the descriptions are different enough that mathematicians have a name for them, and they are very important differences indeed: in the case where employment dropped, then rose again(as an example), that is modeled by by a convex function. If this is not the case, we say (what else) that the function is not convex. This distinction is just a leetle important, mathematically speaking ;-)
SOV,
I see that John V has fled economistsview again after being schooled again, for example, and after being rather nasty. Oh well, at least he has dropped the pretense of being moderate, center-right.
What on earth are you talking about? on all counts.
I post on economistsview here and there. Just posted there several times over the last few days. And no, it wasn't nasty. And no, I wasn't schooled. You're projecting something...perhaps belligerence. What's your problem?
And what pretense are you talking about? Center-right? Where do you get that from?
BTW,
What is your pretense for judging in that last post?
I'm assuming you're referring to me. Where do you see craziness? What exactly is that post stemming from?
If I were reading that and didn't know better, I'd assume that:
Libertarians were for McCain as a group. Not true.
Libertarians are arguing in favor of McCain as a group. Not true. Not even close.
Libertarians are supportive of GOP foreign policy as a group. Not true.
Libertarians are FOR the police state as group. Not true.
Libertarians as a group are Republicans. Not true.
And:
I think libertarians have gone a little crazzier than usual, what with the perceived repudiation at the polls of all they stand for.
What provoked this? I don't know what you're talking about. What are you referring to?
One question for SoV and some of the others: is your only issue REALLY that the author used the word "remained"?
Look, I'll grant you that (i) you can argue with the cherry picking of the year used (shocking, really, in an editorial) and (ii) the choice of "remained" wasn't probably the most precise or best.
But is that enough call the WSJ a LIAR? Maybe it's just me, but that's a pretty big charge to level at someone. And would you really have just let this slide by if the WSJ had used "was" instead of "remained"? For some reason, doubt it.
In fact, I tend to believe that if the topic was something else, say deaths in Iraq, you'd be singing a different tune. I mean, if an editorial in the NY Times said something like:
"Even after throwing billions of dollars into the surge over the past X months, military and civilian deaths last month REMAINED Y, the same as they were X months ago" [without any mention of deaths decreasing for several months in the interim]
I think you would think that was a valid data point in an argument of whether the surge worked....and I'd agree. And I sincerely doubt you'd be pouncing on the use of the word "remained" in a rush to call the NYT editorial board liars. In fact, I think you'd think those that were making that argument were being a bit loony......and I'd agree.
SoV= what happens when drunk college kids who run the College Democrats try to argue their simpering backwards logic with adults. They stamp their feet, throw a tantrum, focus on individual words to try to shift the issue, and then run away and give up.
Go try bullying some college girl into having an abortion, dick.
Well, spider, I guess you could say that it's not the crime, it's the coverup. The right-wing WSJ editorial page lies about historical facts to bolster an ideological case; there's a shocker.
The problem is when you see these conservative\libertarian types rushing to the WSJ's defense (I'm guessing this has something to do with the election.) over something so indefensible; to retain any sort of credibility, they would have been far better served to say that yes, the WSJ did lie, but what can you expect from that particular organ? It would even have been okay to note that even though the editorial did contain lies, that by no means implies that FDR's policies did not exacerbate the depression (and I would agree.) But that's not what happened, was it?
Now as to this:
And there you'd be way, way, way wrong. You may not know this, but I've been teaching mathematics for many years, and in fact am about two years away from getting my PhD in the subject (at a rather advanced age, sadly.) Believe it or not, there are significant numbers of people who think the facts really matter, especially if they are amenable to some sort of numerical encoding.
If someone tried to pull the trick you mention above, about neglecting to mention that the death rate had significantly decreased before rising again, yes, I would be upset. Very upset. This is withholding data. In particular, I'd like to know why the rate increased after decreasing for so long, and if this was just chance, or if there was an underlying causal explanation.
If you don't like the scientific take (we are talking about economics as if it is a science, right?), think of a case where a prosecutor deliberately withholds exculpatory evidence from the lawyer for the defense. Not right, eh?
NO. This is nothing more than the 'they do it too' defense, or more precisely, the 'they would do it too, if they were in a similar position' defense. No, this is nothing more than speculation. Yes, we know that one party has done this; that in no implies that another one would behave in the same way. Believe it or not, when people like me charge that the facts simply don't matter to libertarians\conservatives, and that we are outraged at this sort of argumentation, we really do mean it. Rest assured, if I saw someone who you think is 'on my side' (I'm not a liberal) pulling the same stunt, I'd be just as loud, and just as sneering at the crudity.
1. Yes, SoV, I'm sure you're a well-honed math teacher only a few years away from a PhD. Because the credentials burnished by an anonymous internet poster in an attempt to use such credentials to sway an argument are never suspect.
How's that hangover, frat boy?
2. SoV, I know you're not too good at understanding logic, so I'll clarify the point for you:
spider was taking the logic of your argument and applying it to a situation where the desired outcome for you required the rejection of your logic. It's not a "they do it too" argument; it's the "your passion for your argument's logic is wholly based upon your desired outcome; if your logic where applied in a situation where you desired the opposite outcome, you would reject such logic as out of hand and loony."
When you get to Junior year, try a philosophy course.
Of course, this assumes you'd agree with his hypothetical, but given the partisan nature of the postings here, its not an out of ahnd assumption.
I'm sick of people mistaking "comparison" arguments with "exaggeration" and "desired outcome reversal" arguments. Shows a lack of subtely and intelligence.
Pwned!
Chuckle. Keep on keepin' on Basic. Would you mind putting up four more posts? Or six or ten?
That was a sincere request, btw. Megan, Alex, all you other libertarians . . . this guy is on _your_ side.
Is there a libertarian, anywhere, who actually physically works for a living under their “preferred” economic system, or are they all just parlor pinks when it comes to rugged self-reliance?
I mean, writing for the Atlantic - or George Mason - is not exactly carving a homestead out of the Antarctic wilderness…
*giggle*
oh frat boy, your attempts at condenscation are amusing. Nothing like a college kid with an overdeveloped online ego.
I see you couldn't respond to my demonstration of spider's argument; I'll assume it went over your wittle head. Don't worry, though; the beer pong game starts in an hour.
btw. Megan, Alex, all you other libertarians . . . this guy is on _your_ side.
How tribal. Why does this whole idea even matter?
And which side would that be anyway? The side you are not on?
Funny, just before I read that, my conservative republican brother was just in my office. He was flipping through the channels and stopped on CNN during an Obama conversation and started railing against the guy with a bunch of nonsense and I defended Obama. I had to. He was wrong. Then he looks at me and says "Well, I hope you're right about your guy". I then reiterated what I told him on election night: "I didn't vote for either of them". He then something to effect of
---you preferred him to McCain...same thing---
I just chuckled. Then I read that quote of yours above and just chuckled some more. Same narrow black and white partisan view flipped the other way.
John V, don't bother with SoV. He's already throwing out unverifiable credentials to justify his argument. What's next? His thrilling, unverifiable account of insider status in the Obama administration?
Sigh. Yet more illogic, the same sort of illogic that got you trounced over at economistsview. To a accuse a man of popery does not make one a Baptist. To note that conservatives/libertarians are intensely tribal creatures - it's what got them into yet another jam after all - does not imply that the observer is himself a member of another tribe (at least, a tribe of the same sort.)
Now. The WSJ or any other entity is free to dilate upon any topic at length. They are free to use whatever methods of persuasion they wish, whatever tactics. What convinces people like me is facts and figures. Testable, falsifiable hypotheses. Not detestable rhetoric. Not lies, neither of omission, nor of implication, nor the more direct sort. And people that stick up for that sort of thing? Argue that it's not big deal even if it is "technically" (you can always hear the quotes when they say that) an 'untruth', 'exaggeration' (they also tend use cute diminutives that downplay the word 'lie'). . . but that everybody does it, including 'your' side? I do not hold them in high esteem. To put it mildly.
I love SoV. Give me some of that frat boy logic, kid. You're doing a great service here.
"To note that conservatives/libertarians are intensely tribal creatures."
---I'm glad btoh conservatives and libertarians are the same in your book. But liberals are not---they never act tribally.
"- it's what got them into yet another jam after all "
---Got proof of this? What exactly are you trying to say? That its "tribalism" that caused the Republican losses? Not, say, an unpopular president and a bad economy?
And what of the "tribalism" of blacks voting en masse for Obama, despite 90% of blacks being pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and for school choice? But they're part of the "liberal" party, so it doesn't count.
"Argue that it's not big deal even if it is "technically" (you can always hear the quotes when they say that) an 'untruth', 'exaggeration' (they also tend use cute diminutives that downplay the word 'lie')"
---right. because exaggerations are same as outright lies. always.
". . . but that everybody does it, including 'your' side? "
--as already explained, SoV, spider was taking the logic of your argument and applying it to a situation where the desired outcome for you required the rejection of your logic. It's not a "they do it too" argument; it's the "your passion for your argument's logic is wholly based upon your desired outcome; if your logic where applied in a situation where you desired the opposite outcome, you would reject such logic as out of hand and loony.
Please read again.
"So Kyle, if I say that at sunrise the temperature was below freezing and that at sunset the temperature remained below freezing, that's a completely accurate description, even if at noon the recorded temperature got up to forty-five degrees?
I know you don't believe that."
- SoV
NO. This is nothing more than the 'poorly contextualized analogy' defense, or more precisely, the 'dishonest attempt at reductio ad absurdum' defense. No, this is even less useful than speculation. Believe it or not, when people like me charge that honest debate simply doesn't matter to contrarians, and that we are outraged at this sort of argumentation, we really do mean it.
The quote that is being debated is:
"As late as 1938, after almost a decade of governmental 'pump priming,' ALMOST one out of five workers remained unemployed"
Emphasis mine.
It is accurate and fair to characterize six years in which unemployment went 25%-22%-20%-17%-14%-19% as a period in which almost one out of five workers remained unemployed.
psst, frat boy--John V was asking you what side you were on. He was...ahem...questioning which side you were on....but I suppose that counts as illogic in your book.
Wow, SoV, what does it feel like to be Pwned??
Oh never mind, SOV,
You're too overcome with belligerence right now.
That entire first paragraph is almost unaddressable. First, I already asked you what you were talking about with respect to economistsview and you still haven't answered.
Secondly, you took "tribal" and totally applied it in a way I did not intend (and you know it)...and in doing so, you totally ignored the point I really made.
Maybe you think this angry lashing and baiting is amusing or fulfilling. I don't. So unless you want to engage what I really said, I'm done here. I got better things I can do...
One last thing, SOV,
In case it wasn't clear, the rest of that post you quoted from explains exactly what I meant:
There are more than two sides...regardless of what narrow and superficial view of "sides" some people like to take.
But why address that when you can just say whatever you want and pretend it makes sense, right?
Note that I didn't force you to post this; you did it of your own free will. Y'know, when I go on about numeracy vs blind partisanship, it might be helpful to actually run the numbers instead of merely eyeballing them. Whatever, I think this last bit of idiocy shows we're done here. Well, not quite:
But what does a Nobel(-like) Prize-winning economist know, compared to the likes of Megan, Alex, David, JohnV, Basic, et al?
Frat boy, there's no convincing you with facts.
You've decided that anyone disagreeing with you is lying, come heck or high water.
MikeF pointed out that we were arguing about a quote's reliance on numbers. Providing those numbers, MikeF showed that the statement about those numbers was accurate and fair.
You, on the other hand, attack the numbers themselves as being false. But that wasn't the argument.
Frat boy, your method of argument is false and disingenuous. Its equivalent of someone arguing "according to Baseball Prospectus, player X hit .310 for 6 years." And you, frat boy, countering that, "you're lying. that's not a fair characterization." then your opponent provides the numbers he relied on. Your response, "Well, they aren't accurate, so its lying."
MikeF isn't lying in his characterization.
Relying on numbers you believe are true to come to a fair conclusion isn't lying.
go back to the Young Democrats, boy. They might listen to this crap.
You suck. Are the next 4 years really all gonna be this bad?
Please move to a conservative area so that you can get some conservative friends and then get in petty arguments with them and merrily link to things that screw with their world-view - your posts the last few days have been so asinine.
Please, seriously, start looking outwards.
Chuckle. Keep posting, Basic. The point - which goes completely over your head - is that those numbers support me. But you completely miss this because you don't actually manipulate the numbers, you just eyeball them. You people really are the no-nothing party.
Joey? Why don't you move on to Powerline or Hayek, some place where they have a full-on case of RDS? Obviously if a Nobel prize winning economists opinion is trumped by someone like Tabarrok, you really are unmoored.
scentofviolets, all insults aside, what are you not getting?
You're hung up about a characterization.
Apaprently, averages don't work with you.
If, in a baseball player's 6 year career (let's say he's a pitcher, a group that doesn't usually hit well), his average in those 6 years is: .250-.220-.200-.170-.140-.190, in that order. Career average: .195.
The player is up for free agency. A reporter characterizes the player as being "a pitcher who, after 6 years and a lot of surgery, remains a good hitting pitcher, hitting safely 1 out of every 5 times."
Now, if you were reading that, you'd say that's fair. His average is .195 for 6 years. However, the counter argument here is that he (the pitcher) hasn't hit .200 in 3 years, and in fact dipped well below it a year ago. But the average remains, for the same player, as about 1 in 5. In fact, only 1 year remains an outlier.
But the reporter's characterization is fair. Had he said "almost 1 in 4" then your arrogance and freak out would be justified. But that's not what you get here.
So please, take your outrage for true problem statistical analyses. If FDR's going to get praise for the economy, he also gets the blame, and he can't shovel off the 1938 recession and then get all the pats for 1933-1937.
Basic
Ah, I see the problem. I'm pretty sure I would compute the career batting average by looking at the total number of times the player has hit safely over the six year period, and divide by the total number of at bats over that same six year period. (because the player could have had 4 at bats the first year you mention, and 250 at bats when he hits .140) I think, but am not sure, that this is how they compute career averages on baseball cards... So your analogy is a poor one.
Consider the following analogy: I have a curve y=x^2 (that is read "y equal to x squared" for non-LaTex folks). At x = -1 and at x = 1, the y values are the same. Is it true to claim "As we move from -1 to 1, the y value remains equal to 1" ? I would claim no, since this function has a local (in fact global) minimum at x = 0, but the quoted sentence leaves the impression that the function is a constant function.
I wonder why the WSJ editorial page would say something like that? Seems like a sloppy choice of words.
Bob,
It is assumed that the pitcher had the same number of at-bats per year in my analogy. And I don't believe I gave hint to the contrary. But feel free to invent facts that back up your assertion. So I'm pretty sure my analogy is on here.
Quite frankly, snarkiness on how batting averages are calculated might show how your criticism fails. Are you saying 1938 should count less? or 1937 count more than the others? Were there more "at bats" in unemployment in 1937 than the other years? Pray tell, Bob.
And Bob, there is no negative number squaring in our meager argument. There are only positive numbers, as in how far above zero in a given year the unemployment is. So, of course, I'm pretty sure your analogy is a poor one.
Comrade Basic
If you want to use your analogy, you should state your assumptions. I see no reason to modify my criticism of your batting average analogy.
Re: the curve y = x^2. The fact that there are two roots of unity has nothing to do with my point. Think carefully about how this curve behaves between -1 and 1 (perhaps draw its graph). I trust that you'll see my point. It would be fair to say of our curve that y was equal to 1 when x = -1 and when x = 1, but it would be mathematically wrong to claim that the y value "remained" at 1 as x moves from -1 to 1 (which is analogous to what the WSJ is saying). In fact, to make this claim about the curve y = x^2 would be the same as saying that the function f(x) = x^2 was constant over the interval [-1,1], which is obviously false... To make myself more clear: either the editorial writer simply chose the wrong words, or was trying to leave the impression that the unemployment rate was constant from 1933 to 1938. You can choose whichever interpretation suits you.
It would be fair to say, for example, "The unemployment rate in 1938 was about the same as the unemployment rate in the year 1935," since this seems to be true. I don't think that you can conclude "The New Deal did not work" from this statement, however. This is, I suspect, the real reason why the editorialist chose to use the word "remain."
Wow, Bob, you "see no reason to modify" your criticism. That's really a dumb thing to say, considering I just belied the basis of your whole attack. So you're essentially arguing the equivalent that you aren't sure what the average gravitational acceleration rate is considering we don't know if gravity actually acts uniformly in a vaccuum in my hypothesis. Like I said, though, feel free to ignore this and completely stick your head in the sand. We are living in Obama's Brave New World, after all.
As to your "draw a graph, son" argument: bitch, please. As I pointed out, arguing that a U-Shaped curve is some "analogous" to the graph of unemployment rates in the Great Depression is very, very poor. Your analogy is an epic fail. The 2 graphs are not similar. 5 out of 6 years of this period remained within the approximation he gave, and the final year saw a jump in unemployment that erased previous gains. FDR's policies failed to get the economy better than almost 1 in 5 out of work; it remained in that range.
The editorial writer was not "trying to leave the impression that the unemployment rate was constant from 1933 to 1938." He said that it remained that almost 1 in 5 were still unemployed--the unemployment rate had bounced back in 1938 to an area in that range, and the average (well, unless you tell me about this fascinating "at bats" argument you've got, how 1937 counts more than 1934 or 1938) sustains his point. Nor did he choose the wrong words; mincing, yes, but not wrong. Yes, not the same 1 in 5 were unemployed in 1938 as compared to 1932 or 3, but please, whether bubba or bill loses his job, they're both equally unemployed.
FDR was attempting to lower unemployment to acceptable levels. Despite his work, even by 1938, it remained high, similar to when he took office: 1 in 5 workers remained unemployed.
Gosh, man, by your argument, the pitcher from my analogy (remember him?) his no longer a 1/5 hitter, because he had 1 off year, despite the bounce back last year. Like I said, remains is weaselly, but not wrong.
Comrade Basic
Perhaps a simpler exercise then: simply connect the dots in either unemployment estimation (the one Prof. Tabarrok uses, or the one Prof. Rauchway uses). Is what you notice consistent with the statement "The unemployment rate remained the same over the period from 1933 to 1938"? Do they look like the u-shaped curve that you malign, or do they look horizontal?
On the other hand, it is probably easier (and funnier for me) if you continue to play dumb about the basic shape of the graphs at the center of this dispute.
Re: the batting average argument
Nowhere in your analogy did you point out the assumption that you were making: namely, the pitcher has the same number of at bats every year. This is kind of important when computing the total batting average. Probably, you know this, but somehow forgot to mention it in your analogy.
Ms. McCardle
I get the idea that libertarians are supposed to dislike government interference in all things (I guess; I confess to not reading my Hayek), but I don't figure this FDR obsession (and more generally, the obsession with economics that many libertarians seem to have).
I am sympathetic to libertarian arguments about the drug war, and foreign wars in general. The reason is that the libertarian position seems to want to limit the coercive powers that governments historically abuse. (Such as search and seizure laws, laws against homosexuality, Guantanamo Bay, firearm regulation, and so on).
But what do libertarians say when government CAN do something to relieve poverty, or stabilize the economy (or what if Iraq REALLY was an ally of bin Laden, for the rightward leaning libertarians) ? Is the obsession with FDR (and the rejection of the New Deal) just a means to avoid having to consider this question?
apparently, Bobbie, you can't get the difference into your skull between averages and constants. Quite frankly, you want remains to not apply because of 1937. I suppose it would have been more accurate for the writer to say, "On the average, about 1 in 5 workers remained unemployed from 1933-1938." But we're not arguing about persuasive or weaselly language; we're arguing about outright lies. The writer did not outright lie. Period.
Never did I say it was a constant, straight line. Never did he say it either. But comapring that crap to a partially negative parabola is an outright lie. Your little X/Y graph is so out of hand as anaology here, you're pretty much damned in comparison.
And I love how you again skip by the fact that I undercut your entire criticism of my analogy. Nothing like failing to acknowledge your huge downfall in order to save face. epic. fail. Again, now that you know the facts that you pretended you didn't before, are you going to mount an argument to the analogy, or stick your head in the sand?
p.s. bobbie baby, the writer did not "conclude" from this one fact that the New Deal didn't work. he lists several factors.
But I know you tend to base arguments on one part being the whole. Logical synecdoche, right? Or did you just stop reading anything that opposed your view point and wasn't so weaselly?
And I'm one to think the New Deal did help beat the Depression! Sheesh. With all these idiotic arguments trying to rip down one writer for pointing out the failings to curb unemployment by FDR, you'd think he was saying gravity doesn't exist.
Comrade Basic Math
Oh, I don't know. I sort of think the graph that both Prof. Tabarrok and Rauchway use looks a little u-shaped (over certain subintervals of time, at least). Don't you think so?
Since you brought up averages, here is another exercise for you. If you wanted to graph the average value of the function that either Prof. Rauchway or Taborrok provide, what would you graph? If we let the function A = average unemployment, what would A look like? (a simpler example to figure out first: what is the average value of the function f(x) = x^2 over the interval [-1,1]. If you know what I am talking about, the previous exercise will be an extension of this idea). Would the answer you got depend somewhat on which years you decided to use as endpoints? Would the average value tell you anything about the value of the function at a specific time? All questions, I'm sure, that you can easily figure out.
Re: your analogy. I guess a drowning man (person?) latches on to any piece of debris around. Here's the thing: I'm really not convinced that you were aware of the objection I had to your analogy, though I felt in the previous post that I should give you the benefit of the doubt. Statements like "partially negative parabola" in reference to y = x^2 don't make any sense. It signals to me that you are sort of innumerate. If you are 15 or 16 years of age, that's OK. Probably less forgivable if you are a college educated adult.
On the other hand, it is possible to compute an approximation to the average value of the unemployment function just taking the average of the individual unemployment rates. The main problem is that the editorialist does not state: "The average rate of unemployment from 1933 to 1938 was twenty percent." (This statement is mathematically incorrect, by the way. The average is less that twenty percent using either definition of unemployment, provided you are looking between 1935 and 1938. If you choose other years, you get different averages).
Credit where it is due, though: your alternative wording for the editorialist is an improvement. I maintain that the author is attempting to leave the impression that unemployment was essentially constant from 1933 to 1938. This is true in exactly the same way the the value of the function f(x) = x^2 remains 1 throughout the interval [-1,1]. That is to say, it is actually false. I'm not sure what else to call this choice of words; either it's a sloppy choice of words, or the word "remained" was chosen for other reasons...
Re: arguments for/against FDR
I am far from an expert in economics. I know (or at least I think I know) that increased government spending should stimulate the economy (I thought the same thing was more or less true about money supply expansions, but Japan in the 1990s and the US now are proving to be troublesome counterexamples), all things being equal. If you want to argue that FDR was wrongheaded in his approach to economics (which in some cases, may be correct), you would be better served by heading over to the Marginal Revolution website and reading Prof. Tabarrok's latest post concerning 1930's era fiscal policy. He takes the FDR administration to task for not reversing a Hoover era tax increase. If only the good Professor been around in 1932...