Nature gave us Red Rocks
By Kevin Flynn, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published January 9, 2009 at 5:25 p.m.
Please download the latest version of Adobe Flash Player, or enable JavaScript for your browser to view the video player.
Photo by Photos By Matt Mcclain / The Rocky
An old CCC jacket insignia is on display at the Mount Morrison Civilian Conservation Corps camp in Morrison.
Skaters take to the ice at Evergreen Lake, next to the warming hut built in the 1930s by the Civilian Conservation Corps.
Photo by Photos By Matt McClain / The Rocky
Vince Vranesic of Denver runs the stairs at Red Rocks Amphitheatre in Morrison on Tuesday. The famous outdoor concert arena was constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps from 1936-1941.
Skaters can be seen through a window of the Evergreen Lake warming hut on New Year's Eve during the annual Skate the Lake event. The structure was built by CCC crews in the 1930s.
Nature gave us Red Rocks.
But more than 70 years ago, it was the hard-working young men of the Civilian Conservation Corps and the New Deal laborers of the Works Progress Administration who transformed an edge of the Rockies into a performance stage known around the world.
They blasted the boulders, smoothed the slope, installed the seats and gave Colorado its keynote New Deal public works project - a jewel that flourishes to this day.
The legacy left to all Coloradans from that massive push seven decades ago survives not only in the imposing presence of Red Rocks Amphitheater but in hundreds of lesser-known, even overlooked, facilities that have woven themselves unobtrusively into the fabric of 21st-century life.
Any time you . . .
. . . unpack your picnic lunch in the sturdy stone pavilion of Genesee Park;
. . . mail a letter under the painting in the South Denver branch post office;
. . . attend an IMAX film in the Phipps Auditorium at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science;
. . . drink the tap water in the high eastern plains town of Yuma;
. . . take your kids to watch the bighorns climb Sheep Mountain at the Denver Zoo . . .
Or . . .
. . . walk over the arched bridge at the lake in Pueblo's Mineral Palace Park;
. . . use the warming hut at Evergreen Lake;
. . .watch kids play basketball on the hardwood floor of the Holly Gymnasium in far southeastern Colorado;
. . . take in the view at the Coke Ovens Overlook in the Colorado National Monument . . .
And . . .
. . . eat produce from the farms of Weld County;
. . . tee off at Pueblo's Elmwood Golf Course;
. . . gaze at the colorful mural in the Littleton City Council chambers;
. . . thumb through the file cards at the Denver Public Library indexing the names mentioned in the first 75 years of the Rocky Mountain News.
Each time you've done any of these things you are a beneficiary of projects, big and small, left to the state by the hardy workers of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's myriad "alphabet agencies" of the New Deal.
"I was always amazed when I was going traveling around the state as governor when I kept seeing how much they did and how permanent the structures appeared to be," said Roy Romer, who served three terms as governor from 1987 to 1999.
Romer, 80, grew up in Holly and remembers well the yellow stone walls and hardwood floor of the town gym. The 1938 WPA building is still used by townfolk.
The old Holly City Hall, built by the WPA in 1936, is being renovated into a museum, said Candy Plummer, a town administrative assistant.
"I just remember the Holly gym so well as a child," Romer said. "I used to wrastle and play basketball in that gym. It was bare-bones with no frills."
'Immeasurable impact'
The New Deal's imprint on Colorado wasn't just felt above ground. Sewer systems, disposal plants and water filtration plants were built in places as large as Denver and as small as Cheyenne Wells.
"There was just an immeasurable impact on public health," said Stephen Leonard, a history professor at Metro State College and author of Trials and Triumphs: A Colorado Portrait of the Great Depression.
The raw sewage of a quarter million people dumped into the South Platte River in Denver was sickening men, women and children downstream in Greeley and beyond. Death rates from diarrhea and enteritis dropped after Denver's Northside Treatment Plant opened in 1939.
WPA work at Lowry Field made it the training base through which countless soldiers and fliers passed during World War II. Many of those same troops fed Colorado's boom when they returned to live in the state they'd come to love.
The Bureau of Reclamation's ambitious Colorado-Big Thompson project, born and funded in the Depression, brought together north Front Range and Colorado Basin interests to build water storage on the Western Slope at Green Mountain Reservoir while diverting California- bound water to Larimer, Weld and other eastern plains farming communities.
Water flowed through dozens of canals to irrigate the farms along the South Platte.
At the same time, road building ratcheted up to help get that produce to market.
The Works Progress Administration - renamed the Works Projects Administration in 1939 - built or improved 9,400 miles of roads, 3,400 bridges and viaducts and 21,000 culverts.
Entering the 1930s with only 500 miles of paved roads, Colorado ended the decade with more than 4,000.
For 97-year-old Leroy Lewis, of Grand Junction, the Roosevelt approach to stimulating the nation's economy out of the Depression did more than provide work for this son of a foreclosed Rogers Mesa rancher.
"It changed my life," said Lewis.
At 21, he signed on to the CCC in the first group assigned to the Colorado National Monument, where the breathtaking 23-mile Rim Rock Drive was under construction along the cliffsides, winding through sandstone canyons.
Lewis, whose parents lost most of their 120-acre ranch in the economic collapse that began in late 1929, worked a few weeks on a survey crew, hammering stakes into solid rock, before a supervisor noticed him typing out paperwork on a homestead claim and immediately put him on clerical duties.
Lewis was there the day one of the greatest tragedies struck the entire program.
On Dec. 12, 1933, shortly after a blast had been set off to loosen rock where Rim Rock Drive was being chiseled into the face of a cliff, a slab of rock broke off.
Nine WPA workers were in its path. Three jumped to their deaths off the sheer 300-foot cliff in an attempt to escape while the other six were crushed to death.
Lewis was at the CCC camp office when word came in.
"They called up and said the cliff had slipped off," he recalled.
"We had an ambulance, but the driver was out, so they asked me to drive the ambulance over," he said.
He couldn't get to the site because of the rockfall.
Eight of the workers were from the Glade Park Community west of the monument, the other from Fruita.
Joan Anzelmo, the National Park Services' superintendent at the monument today, said a plaque at the visitors' center commemorates those men.
"There are still families in the valley who had loved ones lost in that accident," she said.
"All of us who know Rim Rock Drive believe it is nearly a near miracle that it was ever built," said Anzelmo.
"The CCC worked against all those odds, with hand tools - it's incredible. A road like this would never be built today. It would be too costly, too impactful to the environment and too unsafe.
"I find Rim Rock Drive darn death-defying," she said.
But the workmanship, such as that at Red Rocks, the Holly Gym, the Sedgwick County Courthouse and Genesee Park, was sturdy and strong.
Strong enough to far outlast the Great Depression.
New Deal notables
President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal assault on the Great Depression gave birth to more "alphabet agency" bureaucracies than there are letters of the alphabet. From the Agricultural Adjustment Administration to the Works Progress Administration, Americans learned their A, B, CCCs. Many of the agencies operated in Colorado. The Federal Art Project, for instance, resulted in the History of Water murals in the Colorado Capitol and paintings in post offices throughout the state. The Federal Theater Project gave birth to the literary career of the Rocky's Mary Coyle Chase, who won the 1945 Pulitzer Prize for Harvey. The agencies with the widest impact on the Centennial State and a small sampling of their projects:
Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942
Relief program providing six-month enlistments to males aged 18 to 25 whose fathers were unemployed. Motto: "Save the Soil, Save the Forests, Save the Young Men."
Some of the agency's notable projects include:
* First ski rope tow and trail on Aspen Mountain in 1936
* Ski trails on Berthoud Pass in 1937
* Cherry Creek and South Platte River bank strengthening
* Trail Ridge Road overlooks in Rocky Mountain National Park
* Sunrise Amphitheater on Flagstaff Mountain, Boulder, 1933-34
Public Works Administration, 1933-1941
Provided for employment through construction of large public works projects funded with partial grants that augmented local money. It created:
* Ketchum Arts and Sciences Hall, University of Colorado at Boulder
* Morgan County Courthouse, Fort Morgan
* Moffat Water Tunnel for Denver Water Department
* Denver Police Headquarters, Champa Street, now Denver Performing Arts Complex office
* Denver Water's Jones Pass Diversion Tunnel
Works Progress Administration, 1935-1943
Renamed the Work Projects Administration in 1939, provided the most employment during the Depression for labor-intensive construction and community service.
* Monkey Island at the Denver Zoo
* Sedgwick County Courthouse, Julesburg
* Platteville Gymnasium, now part of South Valley Middle School
* Fort Vasquez Museum, Platteville.
* Hale Parkway in Denver
Rim Rock tragedy
Nine workers died Dec. 12, 1933, while building Rim Rock Drive through the Colorado National Monument, a project of the Civilian Conservation Corps and Works Progress Administration. All were from the Grand Valley area. A rockslide following an explosive blast in the precarious Half Tunnel area, just south of the Grand View Overlook, fell on six of them; the other three jumped off a 300-foot cliff as the rocks came down. The National Park Service has a memorial to the men in the visitors center. It reads:
"Access to this natural beauty was bought at the price of human life. With gratitude and respect, we remember these men"
* John Rupe, age 50
* Ed Carmichael, age 60
* Robert Fuller, age 28
* Harley Beeson, age 22
* W.L. Wilson, age 57
* Robert "Buster" Moorland, age 19
* Leo Adams, age 19
* Frank Winters, age 55
* Clyde Van Loan, age 23
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
January 9, 2009
6:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
global writes:
Yes, see all of the bad things that this kind of liberal communist/socialist agenda gave us before. The heck with the lazy good for nothings that don't have a job. Give more money to the rich. They truly deserve it. Then the poor can do what God intended them to do - die.
January 9, 2009
6:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
This article is incredible. It is an outright endorsement for a new New Deal. This is pure propaganda.
January 9, 2009
7:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
sawzallartist writes:
John ii
You can continue your quixotic tilt against the windmills of reality but these projects.....exist......and they helped the USA grow out of the last laissez-faire nightmare.
Sorry bud.....your time is done...
January 9, 2009
7:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
Holy cow, John_II, it's recounting the various things around us that stemmed from the New Deal programs. I didn't know about the Northside Treatment plant and its improvement in health statistics in Weld County, and the park shelters at Genesee and the small town gyms. Lighten up. It's our legacy.
January 9, 2009
7:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
RichGH writes:
Im not sure how explaining some of the benefits of the WPA is propaganda, the fact that the unemployment rate at the time was 25% and the WPA reduced that is a fact. Everything is propaganda anymore, thats why we have brains to form our own opinions from multiple, hopefully somewhat trustworthy sources. Thats what we did in November.
January 9, 2009
7:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
sawzall,
Of course the projects were real. But the story only talks about the good side. Of course the government can spend billions of dollars and create some cool stuff like a stadium carved out of rock.
But the New Deal did not help the country out of the Great Depression; it prolonged that depression. So, its great that 70 years later we can now go see a rock concert while sitting on rock bleachers, but what those Depression-era men needed were real jobs, not government sponsored busy-work.
January 9, 2009
7:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Faux_Noise writes:
So building Red Rocks wasn't a "real job", even though it paid wages and produced tangible results? How is that "busy work?"
January 9, 2009
7:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
AC,
It is a legacy from an era where a man trampled over the Constitution in order to increase government power. And, in return, we got some special projects like a rock stadium. The same man who gave us these things also had Japanese-Americans rounded up and thrown in camps simply because they were Japanese-Americans.
Many of FDR's programs were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. So FDR threatened the Supreme Court.
But, to write an article like this is like writing about all the great projects Hitler gave Germany. Sure, government can take your money and build some interesting things. But, what about all the interesting things that could have been by built by private industry if the government had not taken that money.
The fact that so many have been brain-washed, especially the media, about the contributions of FDR is scary.
The New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. FDR imprisoned Japanese-Americans. FDR violated our Constitution and threatened the Supreme Court. But, hey, at least we got a place where our youth can go to get stoned. Oh, and that nice chunk of my paycheck going to something called OASDI is also a legacy too.
January 9, 2009
7:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Prolonged the depression, is the new revisionistas look back. Soon they will call this the Obama recession, just as they called it the Bush inherited recession.
My grandfathers built real roads, John II and that was real work and real jobs. One grandfather sent my grandmother a fish fossil to show her that they never ran out of food on the job.
You don't have an inkling of what those depression era men wanted, needed, or cared about. They were real men, unlike sit at home bloggers who call their lives, "government sponsered busy-work."
January 9, 2009
7:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
John_II,
I for one appreciate this Kind of reporting of true history...
as it dispels republican revisionist propaganda.
Reporting = truth
Propaganda = Lies
Learn the difference.
January 9, 2009
8:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
Faux Noise,
How did the government know that a amphitheatre was needed instead of, let's say, a new office building? How did the government determine that this is where men should work and this is what men should build? It was random; arbitrary.
That is why planned economies do not work as well as free market economies. The government decided an ampitheatre shall be carved in stone. How did it know that was needed? They didn't. All they knew was that they wanted to find something for unemployed workers to do so they came up with a new theatre. It was random, arbitrary, busy work.
Are you really fine with the idea of a president creating new projects under the guise of creating jobs for people? What if a president decided that a magnificent statue of himself be constructed by government-employed workers? Perhaps, to show how modest and "humble" he is, he may throw in a park or a zoo so people can visit and enjoy the park while gazing at this magnificent new statue. And when people question his project, he can simply tell them how bad times are these days and that workers need jobs.
And, 70 years from now, some know-nothing brat can write a one-sided article about how we should be thankful for BHO's New New Deal Tribute-To-Obama Statue and Park For The People project.
January 9, 2009
8:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"You don't have an inkling of what those depression era men wanted, needed, or cared about." - me2
And you do? Why is that? Do you think you are the only one with a grandfather?
INC,
Propaganda does not mean lies. This article is pure propaganda because of its timing and its one-sidedness. The author is clearly pushing for a new New Deal just a Marxist Obama is taking office.
So, it is you, INC, who should "learn the difference". Propaganda is defined as:
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause ; also : a public action having such an effect
No where does it say "Propaganda = Lies". Fool.
January 9, 2009
8:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
The fact that every Obama voter loves this article is proof of the author's incredible bias here. I suppose the author could have written about some murderer, but instead of mentioning all (or at least some) of the bad things the murderer did, the author writes a story about how the murderer loved puppies. And we could all say, 'well, it is true that the murderer loved puppies so what's the big deal?' The big deal is that the murderer did much more harm than good in the world despite the fact that he loved puppies.
January 9, 2009
8:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
John_II writes: "How did the government know that a amphitheatre was needed instead of, let's say, a new office building?"
Since when do governments build office buildings? For all I know, they do, but this would be a surprise to me. And I'm going to take a wild guess here, but I doubt office buildings were in high demand during the Depression, something probably apparent to anyone who was standing on a street corner with a "Will Work" sign, much less the government.
And even if they were in demand, it's not the government's role to subsidize privately-owned office buildings. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that attention was paid by the government to making our national parks more attractive and usable for the taxpayers who own them. This was hardly a radical idea. Wasn't it a Republican president years earlier who set aside much of this land and also assigned government approval to improving and preserving it?
Anyway, to speak in the language of dollar signs you're most familiar with, the original investment made in Red Rocks has been paid back over and over. It is a very popular destination, and also one of the best venues in the world to see a concert. You must have never been to one. I highly recommend it, it just might make you look upon this formidable project with slightly less disdain.
January 9, 2009
9:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
me2 writes: "You don't have an inkling of what those depression era men wanted, needed, or cared about. They were real men, unlike sit at home bloggers who call their lives, "government sponsered busy-work."
Let's talk about John II's real job, based on snippets he's revealed in these forums. Apparently, he works with credit default swaps, and claims they're "fine instruments." I would be interested in John II explaining to us how what he does with these securities is real work, as opposed to just the "busy work" of a day laborer who cut through rock to build one of the most famous venues in the world.
And not that this is relevant, but I'll mention it anyway: he also moved here a few years ago from California. Apparently, he must hate this state as he spends a good deal of time trashing it.
January 9, 2009
9:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
John_II.
I'm afraid you're just to much of a kook to have a rational discussion. You're comparing FDR to Hitler. Come down from whatever you're smokin', man, turn off Fox News and their "the New Deal prolonged the Depression" lies and wrap your brain around the FACT that government spending is necessary for certain things, the Supreme Court did NOT declare "much: of the New Deal unconstitutional (The NRA was the one, but CCC, WPA, PWA, FDIC, SSA, and many many others continued well into the late '30s and early war years) and that these jobs programs were NOT all make-work but indeed produced a beautiful legacy of works (sanitary sewers, clean drinking water, roads, bridges, civic buildings -- 15 buildings at CU alone were PWA funded, and you call this "make work" and paying homage to these legacies is comparable to praising Hitler?
No wonder you kooks lost big time in November. We're gonna have to drag you kicking and screaming into recovery, aren't we.
January 9, 2009
9:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
John_II writes: "How did the government know that a amphitheatre was needed instead of, let's say, a new office building? How did the government determine that this is where men should work and this is what men should build? It was random; arbitrary."
No it didn't. Red Rocks Amphitheater had long been on the drawing boards by George Cranmer, who also gave our city many other of its beautiful public parks and facilities -- including Winter Park ski area owned by the city (Socialism!!) The Cranmer run there is named for him. The CCC and WPA, which built Alameda Avenue out over the Hogback to get there, helped provide the funding. But since the early 1900s the city saw Red Rocks as a potential venue.
January 9, 2009
9:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Re-reading this article, I just caught the part about how they did much of this work, if not all of it, with hand tools. This was definitely a different time and era, not just in terms of technology, but in sheer grit and fortitude. We could do worse in the midst of all the frantic news reporting currently fretting about the perils of "decreased consumer spending" to harken back to the day when hard labor was actually respected in this country, and a much larger portion of the population was able to do it.
January 9, 2009
9:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Wow, contrast this article about the endurance and tireless work of Depression-era workers with this one I just saw on MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28582253/
Apparently, a full 34% of Americans are now obese - not just overweight, but OBESE.
January 9, 2009
10:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
John_II,
ok then, it is simply YOU that is misinformed.
Thank you AC.
I am proud to Know my father worked around the state on such projects. He certainly was no misinformed Fool. Just Hungry and willing to work. FDR gave him a Job.
January 9, 2009
11:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"And even if they were in demand, it's not the government's role to subsidize privately-owned office buildings." - MTS
And where would that role be defined? You are right. It is not the governments job to subsidize privately-owned office buildings. That is my entire point. Neither is the government's job to build ampitheatres for rock concerts.
I have been to Red Rocks. It is a beautiful place. That still does not answer the question of how the government decided to build an ampitheatre instead of an office building or a new automobile factory. Either of those projects would have put people to work. And neither of those projects, including Red Rocks, falls under the role of the federal government.
Unless, perhaps, you know of a special section of the Constitution that authorizes such projects? Maybe under a black lamp, the Constitution reveals a section that states "In order to provide employment for the unemployed, the federal government is authorized to create arbitrary projects to keep citizens busy."
"Let's talk about John II's real job..." - MTS
Why? Crossing the line a bit, aren't you, MTS? Getting a bit personal?
January 9, 2009
11:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"And not that this is relevant, but I'll mention it anyway: he also moved here a few years ago from California. " - MTS
If its not relevant, why mention it?
January 9, 2009
11:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
John_II, you keep missing the point. So what if the "government" "decided" to build Red Rocks in lieu of whatever else it cold have built. So what? It *built* and that's the point. We have infrastructure from them we still use -- roads and well-built bridges, the first parkways and freeways (Monaco Parkway was a New Deal-assisted project -- should we NOT have built Monaco Parkway?)
The fact is you're prancing around here like only Red Rocks was built because you're harping on that. What about the community gymnasium in Holly and Platteville and hundreds of small towns around the country? The picnic shelters? The warming hut at Evergreen Lake? Instead of whining about what else might have been built instead, learn to appreciate what WAS built and the HOPE that the New Deal gave to millions who could not have otherwise fed their families during those hard times.
January 9, 2009
11:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"Apparently, a full 34% of Americans are now obese - not just overweight, but OBESE." - MTS
Wow. Perhaps we should pass a law to ban obese people. Maybe when you libs finally institute government-managed health care, the government can begin to regulate how much we weigh.
And then we can deny people from entering this country if they weigh too much:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3...
January 9, 2009
11:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
AC,
It is you who misses the point. Again, how did the government decide to build one thing over the other? That question gets to the heart of why planned economies fail. The decision was arbitrary. If the government builds a gymnasium, it bullies out real businesses that would have built new gyms.
You are so enamored with these projects that you fail to understand the motivation behind them. Red Rocks is a great place. But how did it help bring the economy out of the Depression? You cannot just take money out of the economy and then give it back again and call that a recovery plan. It make some folks feel better to have temporary work. And 70 years later, its nice to be able to see a concert there. But Red Rocks or the gymnasium did not solve the underlying problems in the economy. It prolonged them. Otherwise, why not just convert to a 100% planned economy if that is all we need to do. We'll take the citizens money, think up some new projects, and hire citizens using the same money we already took from them. The citizens will remain fully employed while we enjoy all the new parks, gyms, and ampitheatres.
Tell me why a 100% planned economy would not work.
January 10, 2009
12:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
John_II,
you have no understanding of how the economy works. It doesn't matter "why" the CCC devoted resources to building Red Rocks instead of, say, campgrounds at Chief Hosa. Those choices are made EVERY single day and by the private sector as well as the public. Every dollar spent doing one thing is a dollar that can't be spent doing something else (unless you're George Bush and you put it all on the grandkids' credit cards).
NO ONE in the private sector in 1936 was going to build a civic gymnasium multi-purpose building in Holly or Platteville. Those buildings are still in use today. No company was "bullied out" in the depths of the depression from building these; they simply wouldn't have been built and the communities would have been the poorer for it.
In fact, private contractors were used on many of these projects, particularly the HUGE infrastructure jobs like the 15 new or renovated buildings at CU-Boulder. Grand Coulee Dam by the PWA not only gave work to construction companies but provided the foundation for industrial development in the Columbia River Basin.
What matters is that something useful was produced and that it spurred the economy, put paychecks into hard-working people's households and gave us legacy infrastructure that WAS and STILL IN in use.
You're woefully wrong; these projects most definitely DID help solve economic problems. Putting paychecks in the pockets of working families to grow the middle class gives a solid foundation to real economic expansion. It did work. Your New Deal revisionism is a fanciful rewriting of history. The money wasn't taken "out of" the economy." It was PUT INTO the economy. Just like today with credit markets frozen up and consumer holding back, NO ONE is putting money into the economy, relatively speaking. That's why government spending works. It really does.
January 10, 2009
6:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
squeakywheel writes:
This is not news. I agree, it's propaganda, especially when you consider there are four similar articles on the same day. And it's only 6:16 am.
January 10, 2009
8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"It doesn't matter "why" the CCC devoted resources to building Red Rocks instead of, say, campgrounds at Chief Hosa. Those choices are made EVERY single day and by the private sector as well as the public. Every dollar spent doing one thing is a dollar that can't be spent doing something else" - AC
Yes, it does matter. And of course those choices are made every single day in public and private. The issue is how those choices are made. And that issue gets to the heart of a planned economy vs. a free market.
Again, the governments decision on what to build is arbitrary. It lacks the feedback mechanism of the free market. This is nothing new I'm telling you here. Any economist, regardless of political persuasion, would agree that statement.
So, again, why would the government build an ampitheatre over a new office building or a new automobile factory? What was the feedback mechanism that instructed the government to build one over the other? It seems to me that in a depression, offering free or cheap office space would have been better for the economy than building a place to occasionally host rock concerts.
"What matters is that something useful was produced and that it spurred the economy, put paychecks into hard-working people's households and gave us legacy infrastructure that WAS and STILL IN in use." - AC
You still do not understand. The government had to take money from citizens in order to pay citizens. Keynes himself admitted his own theory does not work. And, again, this legacy you keep referring to is not the point. We all agree that Red Rocks is a cool place. But we are talking macro economics here - the big picture. We're talking economic policy on a national level.
I already acknowledged that a government can spend billions of dollars and build some very interesting things. But, as an economic policy, is that really the right thing to do? And, does our Constitution even authorize such endeavors?
January 10, 2009
8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
save_liberty writes:
John_II is right, mytwosence and AC are living in a different universe.
Take too much acid when you were kids. Must be nice to live in a dream world.
Keep speaking the truth John_II
Ron Paul 2012
January 10, 2009
9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
John II: "Crossing the line a bit, aren't you, MTS? Getting a bit personal?"
You're right, and truthfully, I regretted the snarky comment as soon as I posted it. I apologize.
I will say the motivation to make it comes from a frustration with what I view as an increasing disdain in this country for blue collar labor, and a refusal to acknowledge that a democratically elected governance is supposed to first and foremost serve the people, not the private sector. I believe the public works projects in question are one of the greatest examples of this country of blue collar labor creating thousands of structures and a vast infrastructure that is still serving us today. And yes, I approve that these were funded by the citizens and ultimately for the citizens.
On the other hand, your view seems to be a rather detached, clinical perspective of Keynesian versus Friedman economic theories. And that what's good for the private sector is ALWAYS good for the public citizenry.
Bottom line, the fruits of these endeavors were major, well beyond just a "cool Red Rocks." Much of what they built still generates revenue today in all parts of the country, or are at least in regular use.
And this government endeavor filled a vacuum that the private sector couldn't. Demand had significantly halted for goods and services, there simply wasn't the capital available to invest in private sector business to the extent it would erase the high unemployment rate. Government stepped in with projects that would benefit the taxpayers, and considering we still make use of much of those projects today, it hardly seems like an arbitrary shot in the dark on their part which projects should be built.
January 10, 2009
9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
John II: "I have been to Red Rocks. It is a beautiful place. That still does not answer the question of how the government decided to build an ampitheatre instead of an office building or a new automobile factory. Either of those projects would have put people to work."
Ok, leaving out the factor that demand for goods and services had sharply declined during the Depression, and that plant and building would have probably sat empty, why should the public spend their money on building private sector buildings and plants when ultimately we won't get to keep the revenues those structures generate? That's "socializing" the investment and risk and privatizing the profits. I don't see how that's any more desirable than privatizing the risk/investment and socializing the profits.
It seems to me our system, in place for hundreds of years now, of setting aside *some* commonly-owned lands, schools, etc., and spending our money on them for our benefit has worked, and has hardly killed the private sector. But you seem to want everything privatized.
January 10, 2009
9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
save_liberty writes:
No problems of the economy are going to be solved by more government spending. Before 1913, The US economy never had any serious depressions/rescission. If the ferdral reserve keeps printing/creating credit out of thin air and artificially lowering the interest rate to create artificial inflation, the American people are bound to keep leaning toward a welfare state. Im afraid of where an administration like FDR might take us.
Keep building the debt boys until our Wonderful country and people are bankrupt.
January 10, 2009
9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
save_liberty writes: "If the ferdral reserve keeps printing/creating credit out of thin air and artificially lowering the interest rate to create artificial inflation, the American people are bound to keep leaning toward a welfare state."'
You're right in that most of the money supply these days is created out of thin air, but it's not the government and Federal Reserve that is doing most of this creation. Their role is about 3%. It's banks through the loans they make. These aren't really backed by anything tangible; they just "become" money once given out in the form of loans.
Ellen Brown writes a very insightful article about this, in the context of a better way for the public we could have funded the bailouts: http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.as...
January 10, 2009
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
To clarify, the gov/Fed is only creating about 3% of the money supply currently in circulation.
January 10, 2009
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"You're right, and truthfully, I regretted the snarky comment as soon as I posted it. I apologize." - MTS
Accepted. Thank you.
"I will say the motivation to make it comes from a frustration with what I view as an increasing disdain in this country for blue collar labor, and a refusal to acknowledge that a democratically elected governance is supposed to first and foremost serve the people, not the private sector." - MTS
First, I do not see this disdain for blue collar workers. And I'm not sure how that fits in to the overall discussion. As for serving the people, I agree. But the private sector *is* the people. Blue collar and white collar both work in the private sector.
"I believe the public works projects in question are one of the greatest examples of this country of blue collar labor creating thousands of structures and a vast infrastructure that is still serving us today." - MTS
You keep sticking to this blue collar shtick. It wreaks of demagoguery. White collar workers designed and managed these projects as well. You make it sound as if a bunch of blue collar workers got together and just built new things. What about the architects, the project managers, the accountants, the inventory managers, etc?
"And yes, I approve that these were funded by the citizens and ultimately for the citizens." - MTS
Good. So do you admit that, while these projects are still enjoyed today, they were not economically stimulative programs? Meaning, they did not help us escape the Great Depression.
"On the other hand, your view seems to be a rather detached, clinical perspective of Keynesian versus Friedman economic theories." - MTS
Yes! Thank you for succinctly summing that up. We must be detached when setting economic policy. Economic policy must be unemotional and "clinical". Otherwise, we get some rather unintentional and unpredictable results. What I am reading here is a lot of emotion-based arguments. We all appreciate the hard labor from blue collar workers. But that is not the issue. The issue is the overall macro-economic government policy. As a matter of federal economic policy, a planned economy is worse than a free market economy. This does not mean we cannot build some cool and useful things. It means that, on a large-scale level, a planned economy is an arbitrary one based on the whim of politicians instead of the insight provided by the free market.
"And that what's good for the private sector is ALWAYS good for the public citizenry." - MTS
No, I never said that. My point is that because private industry faces the risk of losing money (whereas the federal government does not worry about profits), private industry dedicates much more thought and energy into determining whether or not a product is truly wanted or needed. When the product is not wanted, the business fails. That is the feedback mechanism I keep referring to.
January 10, 2009
10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"why should the public spend their money on building private sector buildings and plants when ultimately we won't get to keep the revenues those structures generate?" - MTS
First of all, you miss my point. I do not believe we should build automobile factories or office buildings or ampitheatres. My point is by offering alternatives to Red Rocks or gymnasiums is to highlight the decision process.
The question is how does the government determine one is better than the other. The politicians are in Washington D.C. Yet, they decide that what Colorado needs, thousands of miles away, is a new theatre? How did they determine that? Did they do any market research to determine that a theatre was more beneficial than a new building or factory? Was there a great demand in Colorado at that time for such a theatre?
Again, I am strictly talking about measures needed to rescue the nation from a depression. If Obama, in just a few weeks, announced that, in order to fight our current recession, he was going to build a massive new memorial in honor of black Americans; and this new project would employ thousands of workers; would that stimulate our economy or merely redistribute wealth from one area to another? Even though this new memorial may be the most amazing thing ever, the question remains: does it stimulate our economy?
January 10, 2009
10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
John II writes: "The question is how does the government determine one is better than the other. The politicians are in Washington D.C. Yet, they decide that what Colorado needs, thousands of miles away, is a new theatre? How did they determine that? Did they do any market research to determine that a theatre was more beneficial than a new building or factory? Was there a great demand in Colorado at that time for such a theatre?"
You seem to be implying there was no input and planning whatsoever from state, county, and municipal government. I can't imagine that was actually the case.
January 10, 2009
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
save_liberty writes: "No problems of the economy are going to be solved by more government spending. Before 1913, The US economy never had any serious depressions/rescission."
HOLY COW, are you EVER wrong!!!! There were numerous widespread and catastrophic economic downturns in our nation's history.
January 10, 2009
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
As for economic "stimulation," I'm not really sure if you mean GDP growth, job creation, or something else. If the first, that does not always translate into job creation or higher wages, as we are learning now when examining the huge wealth generated over the last several decades that has settled mostly within a very small top tier of people. Talk about wealth redistribution! How can we have such small unemployment numbers for decades, which in turn has generated unprecedented productivity, and end up with most of the fruits of that wide scale production in the hands of such a small percentage? I forget the numbers exactly, but I originally discovered them in a Federal Reserve consumer report. It's something like the top 10% own more than 70% of the total wealth in this country. You can't tell me there wasn't some deliberate redistribution efforts going on there.
So "Economic stimulation" just for it's own sake seems like a rather nebulous goal to shoot for. We need to flesh that out a bit more.
January 10, 2009
10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
I know something I just wrote looks contradictory. I talk about the relationship between GDP growth and job creation, and how the former doesn't always result in the latter. Then further down I talk about low unemployment numbers for the last numerous years.
It's two completely different points, but because they're in the same paragraph looks like a contradiction. For the sake of simplicity, point one is that increased growth doesn't always result in new jobs (for example, increased output can come from automated processes). Point two does acknowledge we've had increased output and low unemployment, but where have the fruits of this ended up? In other words, I jumped from an abstract to a specific example. It might read confusingly and throw the current point of discussion - economic stimulation for the sake of economic stimulation - off.
January 10, 2009
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
John II writes: "My point is that because private industry faces the risk of losing money (whereas the federal government does not worry about profits), private industry dedicates much more thought and energy into determining whether or not a product is truly wanted or needed. When the product is not wanted, the business fails. That is the feedback mechanism I keep referring to."
But government does have a feedback mechanism: the people who elected them. I didn't live back during the Depression, so don't know if they used surveys, market focus groups, etc., but I assume they had interaction with their citizenry! Local governments would certainly know if there was a want or desire for certain projects and I imagine that input and knowledge was shared with the federal government. There had to be quite a bit of intensive planning, and the proof is that so many of these projects have endured sixty years later, still getting high traffic and generating revenues. There is no way an overall project of that magnitude could have such successful results if the whole thing was just a wild arbitrary guess.
January 10, 2009
noon
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"But government does have a feedback mechanism: the people who elected them." - MTS
No, that is not the type of feedback that instructs good business decisions. That feedback is too indirect. It could take two to four years before the people have a chance to show their disapproval. And that disapproval is mixed with all the other complexities of politics. One may disapprove of the specific project yet admire a politician's overall policies.
And, because the feedback is in the context of politics, it can easily be skewed and demagogued. It is not so easy to demagogue something in the business world: it either made a profit or it didn't.
"Local governments would certainly know if there was a want or desire for certain projects and I imagine that input and knowledge was shared with the federal government." - MTS
True and not true. Local governments are driven by politics. Again, what is the basis for funding one local government over another? How did the federal government determine Colorado needed a new theatre instead of building a new factory in Detroit? My point is that these decisions are not based on economic rationalities. They are based on the whim of politicians. If politicians were wise enough to determine what should be built and what should not be built, why not convert to a 100% managed economy? The reason is that those closest to the business tend to make better business decisions. Politicians can only guess what will work and what won't work. Sometimes they get guess well, most times they do not.
"There is no way an overall project of that magnitude could have such successful results if the whole thing was just a wild arbitrary guess." - MTS
You are confusing the success of completing Red Rocks with the reason for building it. The reason the government got involved was to stimulate the economy. Red Rocks did not stimulate the economy. Now, if you are arguing that the government should build theatres and gymnasiums just because it can, then that is a different discussion altogether. No one can deny that Red Rocks is not a beautiful place. But the purpose behind building it was arbitrary, unconstitutional and counter-productive to stimulating the economy.
January 10, 2009
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
John II: "True and not true. Local governments are driven by politics. Again, what is the basis for funding one local government over another? How did the federal government determine Colorado needed a new theatre instead of building a new factory in Detroit?"
I'm baffled that you can't see how this information can get kicked upstairs. I honestly don't mean this in a snide way, but have you never been involved in a community or business effort that crossed paths with your local governance? There's such a thing as public meetings, you know. And of course, there are other ways to get the ear of one's local politicians who depend on the approval of their constituents to get re-elected, from citizen and/or business community pressure to - gasp! - community organizing.
When citizens want a park for children to play in, they let their local politicians know. Using your example of a theater, when a city's Chamber of Commerce thinks an investment in entertainment facilities would boost the local economy, they let the appropriate governance planning bodies know, to get the proper zoning or a state or federal earmark. All of these thousands of incidences are recorded, and kept in mind when states' request earmark funding from the Federal Government.
John II writes: "You are confusing the success of completing Red Rocks with the reason for building it. The reason the government got involved was to stimulate the economy. Red Rocks did not stimulate the economy."
No I'm not, and I think you're confused on what I meant by "success." I was referring to the success of the majority of the New Deal projects, not just Red Rocks, and by success, I didn't mean that they were "completed." I clearly meant that decades later, they are still in use and generating revenue. In fact, that was my whole point. They weren't just "completed" and then never used again or didn't have their original investment recouped.
Taking all the projects together, they did help reduce unemployment. Whether or not you consider reversing the trend of increasing unemployment a component of "stimulating the economy" is something I'm still not clear on.
Again, "stimulating the economy" is a very broad term - what do you specifically mean by it?
January 10, 2009
12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"When citizens want a park for children to play in, they let their local politicians know." - MTS
I am talking about decisions at the macro, read federal, level, not local politics. The more localized the decision making, the better the decisions, I believe. That is why the Constitution was designed to leave so much power to the states instead of a central government.
"I clearly meant that decades later, they are still in use and generating revenue. In fact, that was my whole point. They weren't just "completed" and then never used again or didn't have their original investment recouped." - MTS
Was that the goal? The federal government is in the business of "generating revenue" from its own businesses? And, I have no evidence that those projects were profitable anyway.
"Taking all the projects together, they did help reduce unemployment." - MTS
That is a specious claim. Technically, the government can employ every citizen as it did in the Soviet Union and say, 'see, we reduced unemployment". In fact, that is exactly what the USSR said and did.
The point of stimulating the economy is to have it sustain itself without having to rely on the government hiring workers in order to lower unemployment. The USSR maintained zero unemployment but would you say its economy was healthy?
Whether or not people still use Red Rocks today is irrelevant. The question I keep asking is how the federal government determines what should be built - not how local governments determines it. It is my position that those decisions should be left to local governments. You seem to be saying that what is good for the local government is good for the federal government; you are making the case for a command economy. Is that your intention?
January 10, 2009
1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
John II, I too would like to see more localized, self-reliant economies. You are right that federal over-reaching can put a cramp on that. However, so can monopolized business industries. Every time I try and point that out, you accuse me of being anti-business. But the result is similar, whether it's Big Government or Big Business making decisions, somewhere a distant entity is in charge of the lives of people in a locale thousands of miles away. In the case of Big Business, I'm thinking of regions that largely depend on just a handful of employers to provide jobs for their economy.
We do, however, apparently require government to enforce anti-trust laws that keep these industries from becoming monopolized. Since we're surrounded by monopolies, it is clear they aren't being enforced.
But, we're talking about a specific question and I'm trying to answer it best I can. You ask how a federal government determines what should be built, not what a local government determines. My answer is that the local government has to first determine that - and then they share the information with the federal government if the project requires additional federal spending. You might not like that this federal involvement is required, but I'm simply explaining the mechanisms based behind federal spending decisions. It's not just some arbitrary decision-making process, there are real sets of data, studies, plans behind those decisions. Just as there are in business. That doesn't guarantee that if either government or business moves on those plans they will be successful.
You seem to view the government's greenlight on the thousands of New Deal projects as a resounding failure, because it didn't "stimulate the economy" according to YOUR definition of stimulating the economy. I don't agree with that, and I don't see how you can dismiss as irrelevant the reasons why - the projects are still used sixty years later and have vastly recouped the original investment made by tax payers. I would imagine a continued market and huge ROI would be goals any company would love to achieve with their own business initiatives.
All this being said, I am not necessarily defending Obama's proposed economic stimulus package because I haven't studied it yet. I don't even know if it contains enough details that will help me form a conclusion. Have you looked at it yet?
January 10, 2009
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
And to answer a question you asked earlier, is it a generally wise economic prescription to have the majority of citizens employed by one federal government?
My answer is hell no.
In the case of the New Deal projects, times were desperate and people were going to starve if they didn't work. The government didn't end up employing most of the citizens, they employed some of them. And the work they produced created some of the most awe-inspiring infrastructure and public use projects that have ever been built. The Golden Gate Bridge was one of them, too. I just hate to see all that discounted as "busy work" that was essentially meaningless because it was the government - really us, the public taxpayers - who funded and oversaw it. If the work was crap and useless, I probably wouldn't be posting on this thread, except to maybe acknowledge that at least it kept some people employed for a time before the country fully recovered. For that matter, the thread wouldn't even be here since the whole article is about giving a deserved nod to some of these projects.
It was an important era in our country's history. Over-villianized by some, probably over-sentimentalized by others. But I still don't see how you can dismiss most of these projects as just "cool." They still serve a purpose today, and that is an amazing feat and demonstration of their worth in itself.
January 10, 2009
3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
mytwosense, these New Deal critics just don't get it that the government *is* part of the economy.
They will never admit the basic quantifiable truth that New Deal programs DID work to stimulate the economy, because they have a political point of view that seeks to exclude government participation; therefore they must argue that. But it is false. FDR's programs DID do much more positive than negative. Government spending DOES stimulate the economy (just look at the US space program and everything we now have in the consumer world developed by the private sector because of the government spending in research and development).
And John_II is wrong, these were almost ALL publicly planned and vetted projects, from Red Rocks down to Monaco parkway to the Denver Mountain Parks and Rim Rock Drive. There was input and planning and selection to them.
Much of what was built was public infrastructure -- roads and bridges. No private business comes in and builds a statewide road system to support commerce and travel. Or a sewer or water filtration system to promote the common welfare and health. Or even the Holly gymnasium -- no company was going to go in to Holly and do that, let alone keep it operating for all these years for the benefit if the community. Or even Red Rocks Amphitheater, too large and expensive to be born by one company but very manageable by we the people to be used by all, even private promoters who share it. These are part of what we call the Commons in civic life, and thank God.
These revisionists are, in my opinion, contemptible in their dismissive politically based criticism of the New Deal legacy and its benefits to us today.
January 10, 2009
3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
John_II: "You are confusing the success of completing Red Rocks with the reason for building it. The reason the government got involved was to stimulate the economy. Red Rocks did not stimulate the economy."
Wow, that's as wrong as wrong can be. Red Rocks park and amphitheater have been HUUUUGE economic drivers. I'm beginning to think you don't understand all this even more than I did last night.
January 10, 2009
5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cityparkwester writes:
Thanks Paul II for you comments. Ignorant as they are, they have prolonged a very useful discussion. I would suggest that before you quote a "fact" that you actually do the research to find out the truth. I have already lost count of your assertions which I know to be patently false. Try reading the history of Red Rocks, for instance. Your "facts" from little to big are just outright wrong. The benches aren't rock. The amphitheater isn't "carved" out of rock; the "government" didn't decide to just build it from on high. It took local Colorado people to have the idea, make the plans, and to persuade Washington it was a worthy project. The architect was from Denver. The CCC boys were from all over the country, but if you take the time to learn it, you will discover that the CCC did, indeed, rescue them. Of the $30 per month they earned in wages, they kept $5, and $25 went to their families. They learned trades like plumbing, masonry, carpentry, etc. that lasted their life times. A few of the men who built Red Rocks are still alive to read your rants. Your ignorance is an insult to their hard work.
January 11, 2009
6:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
Thank you, Cityparkwester!
When American soldiers die, guys like John II don't dare spew this kind of crap.
Yet when men die on a government-backed project (Rim Rock tragedy), John II screams about big government.
John is a hypocrite...
January 11, 2009
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
The last few comments made absolutely no sense. Its a shame a few morons can ruin a healthy public discussion. This forum should be by invitation only.
January 11, 2009
12:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"Wow, that's as wrong as wrong can be. Red Rocks park and amphitheater have been HUUUUGE economic drivers." - AC
Yes, you've convinced me, AC. If you had just written HUUUGE or HUUGE I would not have been moved. But that fourth U really nailed the stake into the heart of my argument. And using all upper-case letters for the word was a nice finishing touch. Socrates himself could not have presented a better argument. Well done.
January 11, 2009
1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
John_II,
You are still wrong. To make a statement like you did that Red Rocks has had no economic impact is just plainly ignorant. Man up and admit it. You don't understand economics at all. You don't get off with just a snide remark.
January 11, 2009
3:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
AC,
Wrong about what? Red Rocks did not help the country out of an economic depression. Is that the assertion you are contesting? It may be popular now, although I still do not know if it would be profitable without government assistance, but how did Red Rocks have a "HUUUUGE" economic impact during the depression?
"the "government" didn't decide to just build it from on high. It took local Colorado people to have the idea, make the plans, and to persuade Washington it was a worthy project." - CityparkWester
Again (again, again, again), how did the federal government determine that it should spend money on this particular *local* project instead of the hundreds of other *locally planned* projects?
"A few of the men who built Red Rocks are still alive to read your rants. Your ignorance is an insult to their hard work." - Cityparkwester
How so? I already acknowledged numerous times how beaufitul Red Rocks is. But my point is larger than the point you folks keep repeating. Did the Red Rocks project give unemployed workers something to do? Yes. Is Red Rocks a beautiful creation? Yes. Did the Red Rocks project help to rescue the country from the Great Depression? No. Was it a project authorized by our Constitution? No. Was the *federal* decision to fund the project arbitrary? Yes. Could the *federal* government just as easily funded the creation of an automobile factory, albeit unconstitutionally? Yes.
I keep repeating myself over and over again and you folks keep responding with emotionally charged rebuttals. I am talking about a national economic policy. Taking taxpayers' money and giving it back to them if they work for it does not rescue a country from an economic depression. Even Keynes himself finally admitted this. It may sound like a good thing on the surface; everyone loves to mention all of the workers who received paychecks for working on these projects. But think about all the other workers who remained unemployed because the government was dilly-dallying with feel-good socialist endeavors.
January 11, 2009
11:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
John_II writes: "AC, Wrong about what? Red Rocks did not help the country out of an economic depression. Is that the assertion you are contesting? It may be popular now, although I still do not know if it would be profitable without government assistance, but how did Red Rocks have a "HUUUUGE" economic impact during the depression?"
Wrong? About everything you've said; all your claims. Red Rocks had no economic impact on the region? Absolutely absurd. It did and still does. Help lift us out of the Depression? Of course it did, it along with the thousands of other projects -- it alone, not so much of course, but in combination with all that was done, yes. You're just ideologically locked in to claiming the New Deal didn't do what it did. But it's in the numbers. In fact, many now believe FDR should have spent more, because when he tried to balance the budget after the 1936 victory, slowing down government spending helped lead to the 1937-38 recession, during which unemployment went up and GDP growth slowed. Otherwise, yes, government spending worked. It just did.
And no amount of right wing revisionism is gonna change that.
January 11, 2009
11:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
AC,
Your rambling and inconsistent post on 11:25 proved my point.
"But it's in the numbers. In fact, many now believe FDR should have spent more,..." - AC
Who are the many? Friedman of the NY Times? Again, you cannot take from the citizens and give back to them in the form of paychecks and call it economic growth. It is feel-good economics. But it is not pro-growth economics.
WWII saved our economy. Europe began buying more and more materials from us even before we entered the war. That saved us. Red Rocks did nothing for our nation in terms of rescuing it from an economic depression. That is not "revisionism", AC. That is the truth. But since you have been brain-washed to believe FDR rescued us from a depression with his socialist programs, you will refuse to listen to reason.
January 12, 2009
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
John_II,
You continually parade your ignorance of economics. WWII ended the Depression? Really? New Deal spending wasn't working? Really?
Well, I got a clue for you: WWII *WAS* the most MASSIVE government spending program up to that time. If you're gonna say that's what did it, you're agreeing with ME and KRUGMAN and KEYNES and you're disagreeing with your own claim.
You didn't even realize how you contradicted yourself, I bet. It *is* growth economics and it's built on deficit spending when the ecnomy is tanking. The government spending literally pours billions into the private sector when no one else is -- New Deal *or* WWII. It puts paychecks into middle class pockets to go out and spend on the goods and services of the private sector. In addition, the projects themselves give work to private employers -- contractors, engineers, designers, laborers ... materials are produced and bought. That's why it's called pump-priming. It works. It's shown it works. You're just so obviously tied to ideological opposition that you will ignore the facts. The New Deal did in fact reduce unemployment and raise GDP -- up until FDR tried to rein it in after the 1936 elections and unemployment went up
Your simplistic statement that WWII ended the Great Depression is, while obviously true, glossing over the fact that the New Deal programs were also working in the meantime. Wartime production -- hey, John_II, TALK ABOUT YOUR GOVERNMENT SPENDING!! The defense buildup and war materiel industry and GIs in uniform et al. was ALL government spending.
So if you're gonna say government spending doesn't boost the economy, yet the US massive spending on WWII buildup and execution DID boost the economy, you're gonna have to explain why you "think" New Deal spending was government money but somehow War Department spending on contracts with the defense industry and all else was not.
FDR's mistake was not ENOUGH spending at first.
FACT.
January 12, 2009
7:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
AC,
WWII was not just about government spending. Europe was buying supplies and equipment from us. That is money that was coming from outside our government.
Furthermore, WWII literally took millions of citizens out of the workforce and sent them overseas. Now, if you are arguing that we can eliminate unemployment by sending millions of people into a war, well, that is quite an economic plan there.
So, equating New Deal spending with wartime spending is not exactly a fair comparison.
January 12, 2009
9:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
John_II
That's why it worked a lot faster once the war broke out. Same principle. Pump-priming wasn't needed any more; the spending was flowing quite freely. However, a HUUUUGE share of the spending on war materiel was US government War Department. No one bought more from American companies than Uncle Sam.
And equating Red Rocks with the entire New Deal is not exactly honest either. You keep whining that building Red Rcks didn't do anything to pull the country out of the Depression, and that's just plain wrong. It and the thousands of other "Red Rocks" projects from the Grand Coulee Dam and the Colorado-Big Thompson all the way down to building Monaco Parkway and the Holly Gymnasium collectively pulled America out of the Depression.
As I said, unemployment *dropped* and GDP *grew* each year except 1938 -- when FDR tried to balance the budget and raise taxes before the job was finished.
Do you realize that the unemployment figures from pre-World War II include those working directly for New Deal agencies in make-work jobs like the CCC? Yes, that means *real* unemployment was much less.
January 12, 2009
11:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
AC,
My ultimate point was that Red Rocks was an arbitrary project. Even if it did benefit the economy (I do not believe it did), the choice of going with that project over something was arbitrary.
Saying that unemployment dropped is a specious claim. As I said before, the Soviet Union had virtually no unemployment; the government owned all of the labor. So saying that unemployment dropped when, in fact, it was merely transfered over to the government is like saying you don't have a broken finger anymore because you chopped it off.
The ultimate goal of economic policy should be to allow it to grow with minimal government interference. I don't think anyone doubts that having the government spend billions of dollars hiring its citizens will temporarily appear to do good. But that is not a sustainable economic policy. Eventually, inflation kicks in; eventually, debt rises. eventually business crumbles from higher taxation to pay for deficit spending. You admitted as much when you said:
"As I said, unemployment *dropped* and GDP *grew* each year except 1938 -- when FDR tried to balance the budget and raise taxes before the job was finished." - AC
Why did he need to raise taxes? Its because the policy cannot sustain itself. Taking from citizens and giving back to them does not grow the economy. Printing more money and hiring more workers may work for a short period. But that period is only a mirage. It is not real economic growth and it cannot be sustained. At some point, the government has to cut off its support to workers who have grown accustomed to their government employer. Debts must be re-paid. Inflation must be reeled in. In other words, an economic recovery plan is need to recover from the original economic recovery plan.
FDR was a communist. I do not say that to throw rhetorical bombs. His plan for economic recovery was communist in nature. The NRA is a perfect example of that. He wanted the government to set prices in numerous industries. Every solution he put forth was more government control. Fortunately, the Supreme Court shut down the NRA and a few other illegal programs he set up. Unfortunately, his threats to "pack the court" seemed to have scared at least one judge into reversing his position. Combine that with the unlawful imprisonment of Japanese-Americans and we have one bad communist president.
I do not share liberals' appreciation for such a bad president and his New Deal.
January 13, 2009
10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
John_II,
And I've been saying to you all along: *So what* if in your view Red Rocks was an "arbitrary project," which doesn't even make sense in the grand scheme as by that definition ALL projects would be arbitrary. If Red Rocks hadn't been done and, in your example, a factory was built, it would be just as arbitrary. It's a point with no point.
You're just plain wrong that it's a "specious claim" that unemployment dropped. No speciousness about it; it DID drop and dropped steadily as the programs increased. If FDR had done more, it might have dropped even more. The single-year increase in 1938 was due to *abandoning* New Deal principles prematurely. The figures don't lie, John. Unemployment declined *every single year* after FDR took office except for the recession of 37-38 which he helped bring about by trying to abandon New Deal spending. You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Fact is, the New Deal worked. And, as the reporter discovered, much of the infrastructure they built is still being relied on today. You can call that arbitrary, but you're wrong. It's not arbitrary to flush my toilet and have a sewage treatment plant down the line. Grand Coulee opened up the Pacific Northwest for private investment and growth. On and on... You're arguing against the tide of history, my friend. It's funny to watch. Argue your points about "Red Rocks alone didn't end the Depression; it was arbitrary," but at the end of the day, you're still on the losing side.
January 13, 2009
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"And I've been saying to you all along: *So what* if in your view Red Rocks was an "arbitrary project," which doesn't even make sense in the grand scheme as by that definition ALL projects would be arbitrary. If Red Rocks hadn't been done and, in your example, a factory was built, it would be just as arbitrary. It's a point with no point." - AC
There is a point, AC, which you keep ignoring. The point is the ultimate difference between a command economy and a market economy. The former is arbitrary, the latter is based on profits. That does not mean that a command economy will occasionally fund the right project or that the market economy will fund the wrong project. The point is that taken as a national economic policy, a command policy does not work. Just ask the former USSR.
"If Red Rocks hadn't been done and, in your example, a factory was built, it would be just as arbitrary." - AC
That is my point.
And to get back to my original point. This article was pure propaganda. Why was it written now? It was written now because Obama was elected and a Democrat majority owns the House. The author is attempting to make the case for a New New Deal.
January 14, 2009
8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
John, you're too far over the edge. Government is an essential part of the economy. Private sector does not provide streets, parks, utilities, etc. That was tried and failed.
When the private sector is failing, government must step in to provide for the constitutional charge of providing for the common welfare, the good of the citizens. Whether it's make-work or the Grand Coulee Dam, providing the seedbed for economic growth is essential. The article was definitely not propaganda, it was fact-based and very interesting for people today to learn the legacy all around us from the New Deal. We rely on and use many of those projects still today and it's the role of newspapers to help us be well-informed, and not ignorant of such things.
You keep avoiding the "so what" question. So what if Red Rocks was built instead of an auto plant (a questionable investment for government anyway, but set that aside as you did). There's no "there" to your point. So what? You cant name a difference it makes. So it was a "command" decision instead of a "market" decision. So what? Fact is, all of these projects I read about are also "market" decisions in the sense that they were all planned and desired by the public but there was no private investment during the Great Depression to make them happen. Contrary to your very limited grasp of economics, Red Rocks has in fact been a HUUUUGE economic generator for the metro region over the years.
The "case" for the New Deal already is made, Fox News revisionism aside. You can't argue with the numbers. The New Deal worked. I know that ideologically you wish that weren't so, but just saying it ain't so doesn't change the numbers.