Good discussion so far.

During my last visit home, my mother described to me how certain Johnson County families with political connections hoarded the best clothes and shoes that were donated to relieve suffering in Appalachia during the Great Depression. Everybody else, my mother included, got to pick from whatever was left.

 

I believe what you have said here confirms the "us and them" that some still do not think exist. One of my Grandfathers told me that people were so poor that you couldn't even steal a living. He said he went through the ninth grade twice because there was nothing else to do.(That was as far as his school went at that time). I know they ate a lot of beans and potatos.I believe eggs were 5 cents a dozen then. It sure made him a very conservative person. I don't recall him ever making waste of one dime.I hope we never witness anything like that.

^ We could learn a lot about the "not wasting a dime" philosophy.

^ We could learn a lot about the "not wasting a dime" philosophy.

 

And we wouldn't be in the economic times that we are in now.

And we wouldn't be in the economic times that we are in now.

 

100% agree. :thumb:

100% agree. :thumb:

 

And I don't believe that we end up agreeing on most things.:thumb::clap:

Something I have been reading and hearing lately, in relation to the 2 UCLA reseachers who say FDR's New Deal prolonged the 30's depression, is that in Europe this time period is simply called the Depression. The time period is Called the Great Depression in the US because it lasted so much longer. Just about all history books will tell you that the US left the Great Drepression only because of WWII, not the New Deal.

 

I believe the 30's was bad for the urban areas, but the way to get out of the Depression was to allow the economic forces to correct theirselves. and at the same time the government, local, state and federal, needed to see that all people were fed. The European countries allowed the downturn take it course and the economic situtation improved more rapidly in Europe than the US.

 

I have been studying the same issue. It is becoming clear that FDR's New Deal programs had the effect of prolonging the depression instead of shortening it. See the many articles about Milton Friedman for more information.

 

The New Deal took money away from business, through taxes, to fund the make-work programs that did nothing to expand the economy. If the businesses had been able to keep that money and add workers, expand production or otherwise increase business, then the money would have been put to work expanding the economy.

I have been studying the same issue. It is becoming clear that FDR's New Deal programs had the effect of prolonging the depression instead of shortening it. See the many articles about Milton Friedman for more information.

 

The New Deal took money away from business, through taxes, to fund the make-work programs that did nothing to expand the economy. If the businesses had been able to keep that money and add workers, expand production or otherwise increase business, then the money would have been put to work expanding the economy.

 

Is that true entirely?

 

Didn't the Hoover Dam, TVA, and a few other projects help to bring cost efficient electricity to areas that did not have it before? Wouldn't that be the same as laying infrastructure that future business' were able to use to locate business' to those areas?

 

I'm just asking if that is a side of the equation your study researched?

It was much more noticeable depending on where you lived. Rural areas outside of the Dust Bowl were not as harshly hit as large urban centers.

 

 

The same seems to be applying to today's economic woes....meaning it's worse depending on where you live.

I don't know if the Great Depression was overrated. But, I think the New Deal was.

Is that true entirely?

 

Didn't the Hoover Dam, TVA, and a few other projects help to bring cost efficient electricity to areas that did not have it before? Wouldn't that be the same as laying infrastructure that future business' were able to use to locate business' to those areas?

 

I'm just asking if that is a side of the equation your study researched?

 

In my opinion, Hoover Dam and TVA are not make-work projects. The REA (Rural Electrification Act) came about in the mid 1930's because electric companies wouldn't string lines to areas that were not densely populated. In reality, it wasn't commercially feasible to electrify the rural areas at that time. However, bringing electricity to rural farms GREATLY increased the quality of lives for the people living on those farms.

 

I read a book that commented on the older-than-their-years look that many farm wives had, including a hump back. They discovered that the hump-back was caused by having to tote buckets of water from a well to the house or from the house to the washtub. An electric pump, if nothing else, improved the health and looks of farm wives.

 

To me, electrifying the countyside is a large-scale infrastructe undertaking similar to the interstate highway system. Probably the only practical way to do it was for the government to do it.

 

Make-work would involve using labor that was unskilled as pavers to pave roads that fell about after minimal use. There are many examples of make-work from the New Deal but I don't think the TVA or Hoover Dam fall into that category.

In my opinion, Hoover Dam and TVA are not make-work projects. The REA (Rural Electrification Act) came about in the mid 1930's because electric companies wouldn't string lines to areas that were not densely populated. In reality, it wasn't commercially feasible to electrify the rural areas at that time. However, bringing electricity to rural farms GREATLY increased the quality of lives for the people living on those farms.

 

 

I would also think that having electricity on the farm greatly increased farm productivity, which provided a benefit to the entire country.

In my opinion, Hoover Dam and TVA are not make-work projects. The REA (Rural Electrification Act) came about in the mid 1930's because electric companies wouldn't string lines to areas that were not densely populated. In reality, it wasn't commercially feasible to electrify the rural areas at that time. However, bringing electricity to rural farms GREATLY increased the quality of lives for the people living on those farms.

 

I read a book that commented on the older-than-their-years look that many farm wives had, including a hump back. They discovered that the hump-back was caused by having to tote buckets of water from a well to the house or from the house to the washtub. An electric pump, if nothing else, improved the health and looks of farm wives.

 

To me, electrifying the countyside is a large-scale infrastructe undertaking similar to the interstate highway system. Probably the only practical way to do it was for the government to do it.

 

Make-work would involve using labor that was unskilled as pavers to pave roads that fell about after minimal use. There are many examples of make-work from the New Deal but I don't think the TVA or Hoover Dam fall into that category.

 

Thanks. I had always believed they did.

I would also think that having electricity on the farm greatly increased farm productivity, which provided a benefit to the entire country.

 

I was just being illustrative, not exhaustive in my example. There is no doubt that the REA was very beneficial to the entire country for many, many reasons.

My grandfather said the same as yours. They were from a small town in Missouri and never noticed that it was going on. They were farmers and really didn't feel any effects from the depression.