patrick.net

sbh says

indigenous says

What about the spending?

It's an addiction seen in both parties.

Agreed

sbh says

Obama at the helm

Spending funded through taxation

No it is spending through borrowing

sbh says

Which is the source of spending when Republicans are at the helm.

I'm not defending either side of the same coin.

finehoe says

Yet corporate profits are at record-breaking highs, but corporate taxes are at a 40-year low. If you look at the ACTUAL amount corporations pay in taxes after loopholes, deductions etc. instead of the 35% that’s on paper, the U.S. has the third lowest corporate tax rate among developed nations at just 12.1%

The U.S. also gets significantly less in revenue from corporate taxes than other countries

12% is about half of the amount of the graph Marcus put up.

The jury is out on that I don't know. Thomaswong points out that the corporations pay taxes in foreign countries as well.

sbh says

indigenous says

sbh says

Obama at the helm

Spending funded through taxation

No it is spending through borrowing

Only in the wake of the 2008 crash, an exogenous event that screwed up the context of the tax and spend model that probably would have obtained otherwise. And then, suddenly, debt and deficits do matter to Republicans. Who knew they paid attention to such matters? Which is not to say we don't have a spending problem in Washington and main street. We sure as hell do.

The point I'm making is that O's spending goes into perpetuity, this makes investors skiddish same as FDR with same result

dublin hillz says

People who oppose unions are more dangerous than al qaeda to an american middle class member from standpoint of realistic damage that they can inflict on the individual over the course of their lifespan.

Post of the week.

indigenous says

this makes investors skiddish same as FDR with same result

Yes, the years after FDR were an economic nightmare.

I find it hard to believe that Spain and Italy rank higher than the US. Kuwait, I expected.

thunderlips11 says

indigenous says

this makes investors skiddish same as FDR with same result

Yes, the years after FDR were an economic nightmare.

Funny stuff. The Keynesian s predicted a worse economy after the war if the government spending wasn't kept up. Fortunately Truman was not as evil as FDR and saw through the Keynesian bullshit. And the lack of government meddling is exactly what gave investors the incentive to create the post war economy. Fact is the only thing FDR caused was the great depression which was his and the FED's handiwork and only theirs.

indigenous says

12% is about half of the amount of the graph Marcus put up.

The jury is out on that I don't know. Thomaswong points out that the corporations pay taxes in foreign countries as well.

Thomaswrong knows less about taxes than my cat. US taxes owed are the difference between the US tax amount and the foreign tax amount if the US tax amount is higher. Like indiviiduals corporations get credit for taxes paid overseas against their US tax bill. They don't pay foreign taxes then pay US taxes on top of that.

The 12% number like the 29% number or any other number depends on what you call "taxes". Exxon recently put up a bunch of ads that they paid something like $57 billion in taxes. Wow, that's a lot. Except Exxon is calling all it's oil field leases taxes. That's absurd, leases are operating expenses. That would be like McDonalds calling buying potatoes and beef taxes if they bought from the government. The actual taxes Exxon paid to the US government was $1.5 billion or 2%. All large corporations play the same semantic games. Some of the biggest corporations complaining the loudest about taxes (think GE) have actually gotten tax rebates rather than paying taxes. I notice that none of the multinationals are pulling up stakes and actually moving away from the onerous US taxes. What they actually are doing is taking advantage of all the benefits (of which there are many) of being a US based corporation without paying for it.

What large multinationals are doing is piling up huge amounts of cash overseas and lobbying for yet another profit repatriation tax holiday. After all if those profits were brought back to the US they could be invested creating new industry and jobs, right? Well not exactly, the last tax holiday in 2004 something like 90% of the repatriated profits went out as dividends and stock buybacks. The companies that repatriated profits saved 92 billion in taxes and cut 591,000 jobs in the 3 years after 2004. Shall we do it again?

The idea of overseas cash is also absurd. It's in dollar denominated accounts and most of it is used to buy US equities. It's not sitting in the Bahama's in gold coins. The "cash" is also frequently back door repatriated by using it for short term loans, stock buybacks, and acquisitions, The IRS has been very lax at looking into this.

Multinationals are increasingly resorting to stateless profits. Apple is the poster child of this. They shift profits around jurisdiction to jurisdiction finding the loopholes in each one that lets them avoid taxes. Does anyone other than the IRS truly believe that the Apple subsidy in Ireland actually owns all of Apples intellectual property? Software developed in the US? On paper it does, so Apple pays almost no taxes on selling it anywhere. It's perfectly legal.

indigenous says

Fact is the only thing FDR caused was the great depression which was his and the FED's handiwork and only theirs.

The great depression started with the stock market crash of Oct 29th 1929. The lowest point was late 1932. FDR took office March 4th 1933. Funny things those facts.

robertoaribas says

Ok, nearly 4 years of job gains, a plummeting federal deficit, vastly increased stability in the financial sector, rapidly approaching energy independence...

I don't call 1 trillion, 1 trillion, 1 trillion, 700 billion "plummeting", I don't see any increased stability in the financial sector. Energy independence (not) has a lot to do with fracking and nothing to do with Obama.

bob2356 says

The great depression started with the stock market crash of Oct 29th 1929. The lowest point was late 1932. FDR took office March 4th 1933. Funny things those facts.

Did you hit bottom in this most current depression in March 2009? Did the BLS unemployment rate hit peak at that time (IIRC 8.7)? Did food stamp user count (modern equivalent of soup kitchen line) hit peak in March 2009?

Obviously not! Only the stock indices hit bottom in March 2009.

So why do you think the human experience during the original Great Government Intervention Induced Depression would be contrary to your current post-bubble depression? Oh, I see, the history teacher told you so. History, language arts and literature majors have a tendency to worship numbers that they simply don't understand. They don't understand what numerical modelling is or limitations to each model.

Ok Bob, thanks for the answer.

I openly admit there is right wing propaganda as much as left wing propaganda. 2 sides of the same coin.

Riddle me this, it is commonly said that the IPO's in the San Jose area dropped to next to nothing after Sarbanes Oxley. I assume this is true? Would that not be similar to the tax law in the sense that they would locate the headquarters off shore?bob2356 says

Some of the biggest corporations complaining the loudest about taxes (think GE)

I'm sure you know that Immelt sits on O's President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board (ironic don't you think). Me thinks this is incestuous as is Goldman Sachs' relationship with the white house. But this is not capitalism, it is cronyism that most of the lefties do not get.

robertoaribas says

Ok, nearly 4 years of job gains, a plummeting federal deficit, vastly increased stability in the financial sector, rapidly approaching energy independence...

4 years of job gains? yea you are right everyone went from unemployed to underemployed not to mention that the numbers don't include those who gave up looking. Your standard answer is that is because of retirement, that does not wash when you consider that the biggest group of boomers are 57 and 56. We did the numbers on this before it surely is not 7.6%

robertoaribas says

My dog knows more economics then you do!

Then you have a very smart dog, he must not have gone to Berkley...

If all the boomerangs will be sent to re-education camp or ahem to "bermuda triangle" it will surely improve labor participation rate.

indigenous says

everyone went from unemployed to underemployed

Not exactly a new or only recent trend.

marcus says

Not exactly a new or only recent trend.

Why did you not comment on the Greenhut article I posted?

http://patrick.net/?p=1226043

indigenous says

4 years of job gains?

Seems that Roberto hasnt heard the news yet... the ranks of people unemployed over 6 months, are being ignored by employers no matter the experience they might have, and they are off the unemployed numbers.. and many are not rehired or rejoin the work force. 5 million and growing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/15/companies-wont-even-look-at-resumes-of-the-long-term-unemployed/

There's something terribly wrong with those median wealth figures. The Italians are worth $124K, while the Germans are worth $42K. Yeahhh... riiiighhhtt.... I highly doubt the average Italian is three times richer than the average German. In comparison, the US at $38K isn't that far off from the Germans, or even the Swedes at $41K.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/URW83lMvrneYqwWf_fDidPxc2ib6LflMAiSvwew4jY90vqa2DCXYQHnoP4_wrCVfwxEd8GjoZRUcHlFMnMtPuBMJxTcCi4-LFvELvIK12fbvXVNOABYG2uqlrbhE0dscLA

DanU says

the US at $38K isn't that far off from the Germans, or even the Swedes

But the Germans and the Swedes all have awesome pensions. THe net present value of that nice income stream in retirement is not included in the net worth figure, but then neither in Social security (a much smaller income stream).

DanU says

There's something terribly wrong with those median wealth figures.

That is a redundant statement Marcus posted it.

I was asking earlier if the mortgage debt would be counted on the balance sheet. Which might explain some of this as the cost of housing might be higher in the U.S.

Either way astute point that went by 72 posts before anyone noticed how skewed that graph is.

Ok Marcus splain this in your best government speak.

marcus says

But the Germans and the Swedes all have awesome pensions.

Couldn't possibly be awesomer than a Calif pension plan.

read all about it on this post:

http://patrick.net/?p=1226043

robertoaribas says

You don't call a drop from over a trillion, to 700 billion in a single year plummeting? That is one of the fastest decreases in govt deficit spending percentage wise in history.

From a trillion to 700 million in 4 years is not plummeting. Sorry.

Reality says

So why do you think the human experience during the original Great Government Intervention Induced Depression would be contrary to your current post-bubble depression? Oh, I see, the history teacher told you so. History, language arts and literature majors have a tendency to worship numbers that they simply don't understand. They don't understand what numerical modelling is or limitations to each model.

I'm a computer major with a minor in math. Admittedly that was a very long time ago so yes I probably don't understand the simple concept that the GDP bottomed in 1932 and unemployment peaked in 1932. Or that GDP was rising and unemployment was falling before FDR took office. No one will know if FDR's polices shortened the depression, made it longer, or made no difference at all.

What's your excuse for not understanding the numbers?

indigenous says

Riddle me this, it is commonly said that the IPO's in the San Jose area dropped to next to nothing after Sarbanes Oxley. I assume this is true? Would that not be similar to the tax law in the sense that they would locate the headquarters off shore?

I don't understand what you are asking? There were something like 10 publicly traded companies that reincorporated outside the US from 2009 to 2012 out of something like 18,000 (I'm just to lazy to google the exact numbers today). That's not a huge percentage considering how much they complain about US taxes. The fact is being a US corporation has a lot of advantages and the grass is far from greener on the other side.

indigenous says

Riddle me this, it is commonly said that the IPO's in the San Jose area dropped to next to nothing after Sarbanes Oxley. I assume this is true? Would that not be similar to the tax law in the sense that they would locate the headquarters off shore

Ok I got curious enough to read about it. IPO's in the US have dropped from 300 a year 1980 to 2000 to about 100 a year 2000 to 2012. Are they incorporating overseas instead? Doesn't look like it. The european numbers are 80 and 40 in the same time frames. Sarbones Oxley certainly doesn't affect Europe. Something else is going on.

bob2356 says

I'm a computer major with a minor in math. Admittedly that was a very long time ago so yes I probably don't understand the simple concept that the GDP bottomed in 1932 and unemployment peaked in 1932. Or that GDP was rising and unemployment was falling before FDR took office. No one will know if FDR's polices shortened the depression, made it longer, or made no difference at all.

What's your excuse for not understanding the numbers?

Like I mentioned before, training in linguistic art (even one concerning artificial languages instead of natural languages) does not prepare you well for the rigors of modelling real life. You may want to read up on some of Simon Kuznets' writings on why GNP/GDP does not equate to the size of the economy. Kuznets was the economist who actually came up with GNP. Hint: North Korean government printing money to pay goons to rape and pillage villagers can add to GDP/GNP.

Likewise, government unemployment statistics becomes moot when jobs programs are supported by forcible transfers: those same goons mentioned above would be "employed" according to the statistics.

These points are not entirely hypothetical. Nazi Germany had double digit GNP/GDP growth and near-zero unemployment in the years after Hitler took power . . . yet the real standards of living of the people was not improving. The Great Depression did not hit bottom in the US or Germany until after the end of WWII.

Reality says

. The Great Depression did not hit bottom in the US or Germany until after the end of WWII.

Last time I checked the vast majority of opinion is the beginning (1939 not pearl harbor) of WWII was considered the end of the depression. You are seriously considering post weimer republic nazi germany economy equivalent to the us fdr economy? Really? Your qualifications for performing this amazing revision of history are what exactly? Since you are such a self acknowledged expert on modelling real life, please provide some kind of mathematical model of how this all worked. Especially how the BOTTOM of the depression was 1945.

bob2356 says

Last time I checked the vast majority of opinion is the beginning (1939 not pearl harbor) of WWII was considered the end of the depression.

Majority of whom? idiots recalling chapter breaks in middle school history books, confusing change of topic with end of historical events? End of depression for which country? How did life in each combatant nation suddenly get better with men drafted into the military and bombs falling on civilians?

You are seriously considering post weimer republic nazi germany economy equivalent to the us fdr economy? Really?

The Nazi German "economy" was growing much faster than that of the US under FDR, on paper. That was one of the reasons why even John Maynard Keynes acknowledged in the preface to the German edition of his "General Theory": that his policy proposals could be more efficiently implemented in a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany than in a western democracy. Nazi Germany implemented a classic Keynesian economic policy set. FDR couldn't push through quite as thoroughly due to domestic opposition. The government intervention policies in Nazi Germany and in the US in the 30's produced a ton of waste, like building highways long before they were warranted by the car ownership rate in Germany, TVA in the US; partisan cronyism like VW in Germany, various dams in the US and alphabet soup committees in both countries. The government statistics like GNP and unemployment rate improved, as all the waste was counted as GNP and make-work programs soaked up unemployed workers. However, the real economy deteriorated in both countries as the various programs kept turning out products that the population did not need while those programs raised the cost of producing goods and services that people did need/want. As crony programs became more and more politically untenable, both countries turned to military production after a few years, as the public had no way of gauging the real worth of military hardware turned out by the crony capitalists.

Since you are such a self acknowledged expert on modelling real life, please provide some kind of mathematical model of how this all worked. Especially how the BOTTOM of the depression was 1945.

First of all, one needs to acknowledge that economic choice and valuation are subjective preferences . . . differing from person to person. So aggregating ordinal values from different individuals as if they were cardinal and universal to produce a summation does not translate to much of anything. GNP/GDP are debt service capacity indicators, not indications of economic well being. Now if you insist on torturing some of kind economic well being information out of GNP/GDP, then we have to back out the government spending components as those are forcibly imposed on the population, not active choices made the individuals expressing their own ordinal preferences.

Why the Great Depression did not end until the war ended in 1945? Because that's when the standards of living started to improve after the war time slavery (draft) and coupon restrictions on consumer goods were lifted, and people no longer had to worry about being slaughtered en mass in the middle of the night (or day).

Reality says

However, the real economy deteriorated in both countries as the various programs kept turning out products that the population did not need while those programs raised the cost of producing goods and services that people did need/want.

The US economy deteriorated from 1932 to 1939? How about some actual numbers on that, or is just a trust me thing? Show me the money Jerry McGuire.

Reality says

Why the Great Depression did not end until the war ended in 1945

You said the bottom of the great depression was 1945 not the end. Totally different concepts. You are saying there was no improvement in the standard of living in the US between 1932 and 1945? Again, prove it. All I see is a bunch of anecdotal references.

Reality says

First of all, one needs to acknowledge that economic choice and valuation are subjective preferences . . . differing from person to person. So aggregating ordinal values from different individuals as if they were cardinal and universal to produce a summation does not translate to much of anything.

So you are saying that whatever you say to be true is true because you feel it to be true. Perfect, can't argue with that "logic". ordinal values? ordinal preferences? WTF happened to mathematical modelling of real life? Oh right, there can't be and actual modelling because each person's subjective opinion of the word "improvement" is different, I forgot. Did rush limbuagh post a bunch of fancy words on his website that you just had to try out?

bob2356 says

No one will know if FDR's polices shortened the depression, made it longer, or made no difference at all.

It has been proven a hundred ways to Sunday that FDR turned what would have been a garden variety recession into a 10-15 depression. This is even espoused by the chairman of the beloved FED. Friedman stated it and Mises stated it before it happened and many Austrian economists have demonstrated this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Sorry but you are ignorant on this point.

bob2356 says

Ok I got curious enough to read about it. IPO's in the US have dropped from 300 a year 1980 to 2000 to about 100 a year 2000 to 2012. Are they incorporating overseas instead? Doesn't look like it. The european numbers are 80 and 40 in the same time frames. Sarbones Oxley certainly doesn't affect Europe. Something else is going on.

Where did you get these numbers from?

I found this for domestic IPOs

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/239184/acquisition+finance+LBOs+MBOs/2013+IPO+Report

This shows that the number of IPOs plummeted after Sarbanes Oxley. Clearly there is a correlation.

I don't see a graph for european IPOs do you have one?

My main point is that as stated by CaptainShuddup there never is a recovery the economy grows in a different direction.

It would appear that government overreach (sarbanes oxley) either stifled IPOs nation wide or forced them offshore.

So the lack of jobs we have now is this sort of thing which makes investors skidish and stay out of investing.

Another way to think of it is nothing of value is created by force. Sarbanes Oxley is force, crony capitalism is force, bailouts are force. So does force create value? Answer fuck NO

Sarbanes Oxley is estimated to cost the economy 1.5 trillion dollars a year. How can you prove that? You can't. How much money is lost from business' that were never born? Apple started this way if nobody invested in them they would not exist.

Unless you can show me how the numbers in Europe are the reciprocal of the U.S. IPOs then it is just stifled business from government overreach.

The simple answer on how you improve the economy is stop beating it over the head with a club.

bob2356 says

The US economy deteriorated from 1932 to 1939? How about some actual numbers on that, or is just a trust me thing? Show me the money Jerry McGuire.

The burden is actually on you to prove that the Great Depression hit bottom in 1932, when the stock market hit bottom. 1932 being the economic bottom was your claim, not mine, frankly an untenable claim for anyone with some basic understanding about the stock market and the economy. Did our current economic depression hit bottom in March 2009? Of course not!

The most iconic photo symbolizing the Great Depression, Dorothea Lang's "Migrant Mother" wasn't taken until 1936! Nearly a full term into FDR's presidency.

You said the bottom of the great depression was 1945 not the end. Totally different concepts. You are saying there was no improvement in the standard of living in the US between 1932 and 1945? Again, prove it. All I see is a bunch of anecdotal references.

The overall standards of living certainly was not improving during the war years compared to the pre-war years (yes, even 1932!). No new cars were made for civilian use during the war; gasoline purchase along with numerous other basic necessities were restricted by rationing . . . that's in the US. For much of the rest of the world (especially Europe), it was starvation time. Let's not forget the slavery draft that sent many husbands, fathers, brothers and sons to get killed and maimed in ritualized mutual slaughter.

It's amazing how any rational person can characterize war time life as improvement over the prior peace years. Perhaps for the fat cats with extraordinarily large exposure to stocks then got a chance to war-profiteer during the war, the war years might have been better than 1932. That's what you are essentially looking at when using stock market index and GNP (debt service capacity) as proxy for economic well being. However, for the ordinary folks on Main Street, 1932 was just like our early 2009 stock market bottom; the real hardship came later, as the various governments of the world intervened more and more heavily in the economy, helping their fat cat buddies at the expense of the ordinary people.

So you are saying that whatever you say to be true is true because you feel it to be true.

No. If you can present a logical argument, I'm all ears.

ordinal values? ordinal preferences? WTF happened to mathematical modelling of real life?

Ordinality is math too. Human preference is ordinal. For example, if you prefer your current girlfriend over your previous girlfriend, that doesn't mean assigning a number to your current girlfriend, then another number to your previous girlfriend would have any cardinal or universal meaning.

Oh right, there can't be and actual modelling because each person's subjective opinion of the word "improvement" is different, I forgot. Did rush limbuagh post a bunch of fancy words on his website that you just had to try out?

I have no idea why you even brought up Rush Limbaugh. The last time I listened to him was 20 years ago. Human preference being subjective is a simple reality. Any mathematical model that fails to take that into account would just see its own value as a valid model shattered whenever that boundary condition is encountered.

Reality says

As crony programs became more and more politically untenable, both countries
turned to military production after a few years, as the public had no way of
gauging the real worth of military hardware turned out by the crony capitalists.

Love it. Classic austrianism. 2+2 = 17.

Reality says

That was one of the reasons why even John Maynard Keynes acknowledged in the
preface to the German edition of his "General Theory": that his policy proposals
could be more efficiently implemented in a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany
than in a western democracy.

This is not what he said in the preface. You said this on here over a year ago and it was a misquote then - again I usually remember when, where, and from whom I have read something before. Keynes said "Nevertheless the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of the production and distribution of a given output produced under conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire."

Keynes says his theory is more easily adapted in a totalitarian state than a theory of laissez-faire. He says nothing of western democracies other than acknowledging that his theories had been controversial there because the theory was a transistion from tradition.

Saying that a theory based upon increasing government expenditures to increase demand is more easily implemented in a totalitarian state than a theory based on free markets is hardly groundbreaking. To people accustomed to central planning, free markets and laissez-faire policies would be unfamiliar. No shit.

david1 says

Reality says

As crony programs became more and more politically untenable, both countries

turned to military production after a few years, as the public had no way of

gauging the real worth of military hardware turned out by the crony capitalists.

Love it. Classic austrianism. 2+2 = 17.

More like 1+1 = 4.5, as in average family formation. The usual assumptions in math regarding unit, uniformity and non-interaction/breeding simply do not apply when it comes to human interactions. The "+" took place largely because of the desire to breed! 1+1=4.5 is the average family formation in reality; 1+1=2 would be the description of a dying society.

Likewise, transactions take place only because two parties disagree on the relative value of the two items being exchanged (but agree on the action of exchanging), so all the "=" signss in Keynesian formulae are highly suspect to begin with.

david1 says

He says nothing of western democracies other than acknowledging that his theories had been controversial there because the theory was a transistion from tradition.

Controversial because his theory is anathema to everything since the idea of individual liberty became widespread in the West since the 18th century.

david1 says

To people accustomed to central planning, free markets and laissez-faire policies would be unfamiliar. No shit.

No shit. Keynesianism is central planning, and road to serfdom.

sbh says

Only in the wake of the 2008 crash, an exogenous event that screwed up the context of the tax and spend model that probably would have obtained otherwise.

WTF? dude we were living in a bubble that popped.

Reality says

anathema

Hardly. Keynesian policies (before, during, and after WW2 specifically) led to the greatest period of economic expansion after the industrial revolution. Keynesian policies like the National Highway System, GI Bill, the Space Race, and the expansion of social security combined with Free Market, pre-OPEC cheap oil led to a positive feedback loop with the rise of consumerism.

The cronies you blame for the nation's economic ills were born of Reaganism; deregulation encouraged concentration of wealth - goverment spending shifted from domestic welfare to war stockpiling.

You cannot ignore the free market, supply-side influence of the past 35 years when talking about where we are. A gold standard would have only exascerbated these problems.

this chart is biased because it is based on assets when it should be based on income. consumerism in the U.S is the strongest in the world so of course we are going to have few assets.

Reality says

The burden is actually on you to prove that the Great Depression hit bottom in 1932, when the stock market hit bottom. 1932 being the economic bottom was your claim, not mine,

Au contraire mon frère. You are claiming that the economic indicators that are are used by the vast majority economists, historians, and the general public are invalid which puts the onus of providing what you consider valid indicators squarely on you. As a renowned scholar (at least in your mind) of mathematics, history, economics and the depression it should be child's play for you to provide a summary of these in a couple paragraphs. Show me the money.

bob2356 says

indigenous says

Fact is the only thing FDR caused was the great depression which was his and the FED's handiwork and only theirs.

I'm still waiting for some type of documentation on this. So let me see if I understand. You are saying that the generally accepted theory that the huge credit bubble of the 1920's was actually the cause of the depression is incorrect. That the stock market crash, the banking crash, the 30%+ unemployment rate, the 40% drop in economic output, the loss of millions of peoples savings from 1929 to 1933 wasn't part of the great depression. The great depression only happened after FDR took office, spent a year getting his policies implemented, and another year for his policies to have an effect. So the great depression actually started in 1935? God did a lot of people get this wrong over the years. It's a good thing we have you to show us the truth.

Reality says

It's amazing how any rational person can characterize war time life as improvement over the prior peace years.

Really? Unemployment dropped from 15% to almost zero, industrial output increased 15% a year, industrial capacity increased by 50% altogether, productivity doubled, consumer spending increased 12% without any cars being sold. There was rationing of some goods, people I've talked to (family who lived through the depression mostly) about the era thought having a job and money even with rationing was better then being unemployed. The public overwhelmingly supported the war effort. Hard to believe in post Vietnam times, but true. Bonus points, the increases in capacity and productivity set the stage for an amazing 25 year economic boom that has never been seen before in history.

Reality says

The most iconic photo symbolizing the Great Depression, Dorothea Lang's "Migrant Mother" wasn't taken until 1936! Nearly a full term into FDR's presidency.

There are Lang photo's of the depression going back to 1929.Your point is what? That the depression was still going on in 1936. Of course it was. You seem to have a real problem with understanding the difference between the concept of bottom and the concept of end. You keep confusing and interchanging them in your comments. Bottom is when things start to improve, end is when they finish improving. It's not hard once you apply yourself. Try to focus.

BTW "Migrant Mother" was taken as a part of a series taken when Lang was employed by the Relief Agency documenting the poverty of workers displaced by the crop and farm failures of the dust bowl. Even if the dust bowl had happened in the roaring 20's these people would have suffered severe poverty. Over 2.5 million people lost everything and had to migrate. I suppose next you will claim FDR caused the drought that created the dust bowl.