Mavorpen wrote:Mike the Progressive wrote:
*yawns* And I'm use to some posters just saying "biased sources are biased" without actually providing anything to back there shit up.
When a small child throws a tantrum, you ignore it, because it's a child being a child. If someone gives you a link to a blog and presents it as a reputable source, you are under no obligation to say anything other than pointing out the fact that the source is utter shit.
Of course not, but if you visit the blog, the person who wrote those posts hyperlinked the statistics he/she used to acceptable institutions and those in return cite some primary sources (government records, for example).
So you can certainly debate how those facts are used, but at the end of the day it doesn't diminish the actual numbers. Unemployment remained high, private consumption low and the increase in productivity was attributed to the government printing money and spending it.
I still think it was a necessary move to prepare the country for war and to calm domestic turmoil, but to claim the New Deal in itself saved the country from economic ruin? That's certainly debatable. WW2 and the sheer destruction of most of the industrialized world did.
