(V): The effects of the New Deal still remain a source of controversy and debate amongst economists and historians...

The consequences were predictably uneven. (See "Recession of 1937 and recovery," below). Whether the New Deal can be credited with the economy's eventual recovery, or blamed for impeding it––and which of its aspects were most effective––thus remains a complicated, and highly controversial, question.

Czuch: Well it certainly didn't cause your country to fall into complete ruins.

Highly controversial... explain.

(V): There are many economists who believe that we would have come out of our depression faster had we done nothing at all.... that the new deal actually ended up making things worse......

I happen to think that is the case right now too

Czuch: Ok... what did these economists say, what was their belief based on, and what evidence do they have to back up such a statement.

And as for what are we doing now.... We've had to rescue a few banks from collapsing thanks to (as shown via info) from collapse. We are updating our bank regulation laws. We are changing the banking system in that big bosses will no longer get fat cat rewards especially if they mess up. We are thinking of possible criminal prosecution of certain bank leaders. Our BoE Interest rates have been cut to 0.5%. Certain help has been given in legislation to cut down on the number of repo's on houses.

And also our PM is facing possible hard questions due to that he was the man in charge of looking after the finances of this country before he took over from Tony Blair.

The people of this country want action taken so that such mess up's cannot take place as has happened here. EG RBS (one of the banks we had to rescue) bought as part of a consortium a foreign bank, they as reported by people who were involved with the matter at the time of the take over DID NOT HAVE FULL ACCOUNTS OFF THAT BANK. Because if they did, they wouldn't have bought it, someone remarked that realistically the foreign bank should have paid RBS and the others money to take it over, as it's accounts showed that most of it's 'assets' in the way of loans owed to it by people, were bad, going to be written off or sub prime loans waiting to go bad.

A fix to make sure it doesn't happen again is the people of this countries main concern. As it has effected many pensions and other supposed secure investments of the people of the UK.

(V): I guess my point was that.... well over here we are trying to tax and spend and regulate our way out of this mess right now (although my personal opinion is that this was merly part of a cycle and a needed correction, now being made worse by the efforts to stop it) But my question is, what do you do when you are a country that already taxes some as much as 70%? What do you do if you are already a tax and spend country? And how does a country like this end up with any problems in the first place?

Czuch: There is no income tax level of 70% in the UK. The maximum income tax rate is 40%. So where you get this 70% from is wrong.

No one is trying to stop it, it's already happened, just we are trying (most gov's) to make the bad period less bad.

(V): Well it certainly didn't cause your country to fall into complete ruins.


Well, if your point is that a bit of socialism didnt totally ruin the US, well, maybe you are correct.... Now we are getting a dose even bigger than before, I think capitalism can get past this time as well, maybe in spite of it, maybe because it gaver us a boost we need... but I also believe that it wont be too long before we are capitalists using a bit of socialism once in awhile to get us through the hardest times, to becoming socialists


Let me ask you a question... this recession is affecting you guys as well as many other countries with socialized models, what do you do when things get rough????

(V): "In the short term, New Deal programs helped improve the lives of people suffering from the events of the depression. In the long run, New Deal programs set a precedent for the federal government to play a key role in the economic and social affairs of the nation."

I think this is a correct analysis. Over time, the programs which improved the lot of the common man were gutted, while the corporatism set in place led to the fascist state now entrenched in our political culture. Was this the plan all along? An argument can be made for it.