The New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

My CasePrices"My opponent ones again failed to realize that the AAA was only one of many new deal programs. The AAA served to increase prices of food products to increase money circulation and farmer profits. My opponent notes that these farmers were not making any profits due to high prices but neglects the fact that the government subsidized these farmers. Secondly his claim that people were not buying these products is false. Many American"s at the time were able to buy these food products with the help of the CCC, CWA, NRA, SSA, and FHA. These programs where designed to ensure that even with high poverty rates, American"s would be able to meet their basic needs."My opponent fails to understand that the AAA was ruled unconstitutional and did not see to the end of the Great Depression, thus it did not help end the Great Depression. Roosevelt's actions of increasing monopoly and raising prices higher, the AAA did create negative effects. How can you tell? Consumption did not increase during the Great Depression. In other words, people bought less because FDR forced an increase in prices. If the AAA did not pass would it create massive turmoil among farmers? Likely no, in the 1920s Congress proposed a bill to support farmers, but President Calvin Coolidge vetoed it. Was there a massive depression? No, the 1920s was a very prosperous decade. [2,3]Wages"Ones again my opponent provides no evidence to support his claim that American"s were not able to buy products even with the increase in wages. In his first speech his evidence talked about how the high wages depressed production and how it was not beneficial to African Americans. He never however, provides you with any evidence that explicitly or even implies that Americans did not spend."My opponent is lying here, I have always provided evidence in each round. All anyone has to do is check the sources section of my case. Not just that, I put sources down that explains how wages hurt and a video. The undisputed fact is that wages increases labor costs and causes negative effects to production. More workers would increase production and raise profits, but this did not happen. Just like before, I will place to the same sources. You guys already know about the video."Did the New Deal programs end the depression? The answer would be NO. But that was not the question. Did the New deal Programs accelerate the recovery from the great depression? Yes. The New Deal started the wheel of the American industries which supply the materials used in the war. If the New deal was not in place, America would have had neither the recourses nor the economy to supply the war. The economy would have completely crashed long before the war."My opponent is now arguing that the New Deal accelerated the recovery which led private industries to boom in the war. Is this true? Nope. In fact, what did increase was more government intervention to force companies to increase production. As stated here:"Investment took off from 1941 onwards to reach, as a share of GDP, way more than double the level that investment stood at in 1940. Why was that? Well, it was not the result of a pick-up in private sector investment. What happened was a massive rise in government investment and spending. In 1940, private sector investment was still below the level of 1929 and actually fell further during the war. The state sector took over nearly all investment, as resources (value) were diverted to the production of arms and other security measures in a war economy." [5]Private investments and industries did not increase during the war, it was all government investment interefering in the private sector. In other words, industry did not boom even with World War 2. It is a myth that World War 2 saved the Great Depression. Private investments was practically gone during World War 2. Look at this:"An economy can’t prosper when markets are being overruled by command-and-control rationing. During the war, companies found it easier and more profitable to produce for government than to produce for consumers. Even companies such as Eastman Kodak, the film and camera company, began manufacturing rifle scopes and hand grenades for the military. GM stopped making cars for civilians and made military vehicles instead. Tires, gasoline, shoes, beef, sugar, coffee and much else were rationed. The standard of living in the U.S. during the war collapsed; conditions for consumers were much worse than in the ‘30s. Remember that the best definition of a depression is: A period of time when most people’s standard of living falls significantly." [6]As the video shows, war destroys wealth, it does not create it.Unemployment"Okay then imagine what the numbers would have been without these safety nets in placed."The market would have become more stable and we would have seen far more rapid economic growth by 1936. Lee Ohanian has some information on it in his study with Harold Cole, but he also explains it in the video in the previous round. This is because industries would have been far more flexible and be able to hire more workers to produce more. Lower prices means the ability to buy more goods, higher prices means less consumption. [5]Devaluation of Dollar"The only reason why these foreign countries had so much interest in importing goods from the U.S was because of the devalued dollar. The devalued dollar presented these foreign countries during the war with the cheapest way to buy the resources needed to continue the war. Without a devalued American dollar, these countries would have most like found a different source to obtain their resources. One whose currency had less of a value in the global market than that of the U.S and any other industrial nation."FDR put the country back on the gold standard a year after he took it off, but it was clear that the reduction of the tariffs was a far larger implication to a revival in trade. In fact, the US was pratically giving away war goods through Lend-Lease, so they was no need to buy them. [7,8]TaxesTaxes was raised later for World War 2 specifically, this tax increase was with the New Deal. Like I said, it destroyed incentives.ConclusionI have proven that the New Deal's policies of high wages and high prices had negative effects on consumption and economic growth. The Depression would have ended faster without the New Deal. World War 2 did not end the Great Depression either because government investments took over the economy. The private sector did not recover until after the war. Had the New Deal not been purused the recovery would have been faster.Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. Roberts, Michael. "The Great Depression and the War." Michael Roberts Blog, n.d. Web.3. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. Higgs, Robert. "How FDR Made the Depression Worse." Mises.org. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, Feb. 1995. Web.5. Cole, Harold L., and Lee E. Ohanian. "New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis." Econ.Yale.Edu. Yale Department of Economics, May 2001. Web.6. Casey, Doug. "Escaping the Great Depression - and Extending the Greater Depression." CaseyResearch.com. The Casey Report, n.d. Web.7. Cain, Herman, and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9: An Army of Davids. Herndon, VA: Velocity ; Mascot, 2012. Print.8. http://en.wikipedia.org...9. http://www.debate.org...http://www.youtube.com...