Why the New Deal Was Not an Effective Solution to the Great Depression
The Stock Market Crash of 1929 sent the United States into a deep and crippling depression. Roosevelt, elected president for 1933, came into the middle of this. All unsuccessfulness of getting the economy back on track could, up to that point, be blamed on the Hoover administration. However, throughout the twelve plus years he remained in office, Franklin D. Roosevelt did not do much to help, either. In fact, some historians argue, he slowed the progress of recovery, and his New Deal proved detrimental to, what it seems, at least, was his goal: to restore the United States economy to pre-1929 status or better. However, others still might argue that he had more power-hungry goals.
Evidence seems to add up in favor of Roosevelt being a man who did great things for his country. Roger Biles, in A New Deal for the American People, mentions several acts that he calls “’stabilizers’ that have been more successful in averting another such depression (221).” These include the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, which made it a governmental responsibility to supervise the stock market, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which gave the government more power over state banks thus decreasing the number of bank failures.
This bigger, more involved government appeared sudden, but welcomed. It came “at a time when the only Washington bureaucracy most of the people encountered…was the US Postal Service (Biles 222).” The government set up welfare and “was supporting farmers, monitoring the economy…subsidizing housing (Biles 222).” Those affected by the Depression, out of jobs and homes, needed these programs to survive. How does this new dependence effect decisions in the White House? The people needed jobs, but places that previously had job opportunities had closed down or had not been making enough money to afford hiring. So, “Roosevelt’s policies…served mainly to stimulate the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document