does this support Burke's theory?

Gixxer · Post by **Gixxer** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:44 pm

U.S. wading deeper into banking industry

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28880095/

"In his confirmation hearing last week, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said the White House is working on a new bank rescue plan. He was short on details, but the massive scope of the problem has prompted talk that the administration may be planning to "nationalize" a large portion of the banking industry."

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:50 pm

Gixxer wrote:U.S. wading deeper into banking industry

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28880095/

"In his confirmation hearing last week, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said the White House is working on a new bank rescue plan. He was short on details, but the massive scope of the problem has prompted talk that the administration may be planning to "nationalize" a large portion of the banking industry."

Is it globalization? Yes. Is Globalization part of the New World Order? Yes

Burke, or anyone for that matter, doesn't really have ownership over those that oppose the agenda of the NWO.

Gixxer · Post by **Gixxer** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:53 pm

UOD wrote:Is it globalization? Yes. Is Globalization part of the New World Order? Yes

Burke, or anyone for that matter, doesn't really have ownership over those that oppose the agenda of the NWO.

i understand that this is not, per say, burkes, but he is the only person (and a few others on here) that posts a lot of links like this, so i used his name.

no offense or ownership intended.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:17 pm

Shoot when we went into the business of bailing out banks etc we started nationalizing things. Obama is continuing what started with President Bush regarding this bailout.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:36 pm

Gixxer wrote:but he is the only person (and a few others on here)

You just proved yourself wrong.

Gixxer · Post by **Gixxer** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:46 pm

YARDofSTUF wrote:You just proved yourself wrong.

well if i am gonna be proved wrong, nobody better to do it than myself.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:01 pm

obama is no different then bush..or should i say bush was more liberal then he should have been

bailouts = socialism

David · Post by **David** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:14 pm

Ghosthunter wrote: bailouts = socialism

Bailouts are hardly tantamount to socialism. Quite the reverse, actually. They demonstrate the level of corruption in our government, a de facto corporatocracy. Socialism would benefit the masses.

I hope all is well by you,
david

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:25 pm

Ghosthunter wrote:obama is no different then bush..or should i say bush was more liberal then he should have been

bailouts = socialism

I would agree with you save for one thing....we the people don't own our government, the corporations do.

True socialism espouses the distribution of wealth....I don't know of any individual American that will benefit from these bailouts although I do see certain corporations that will.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, in principle, we agree....bailouts are bad.

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:39 pm

Ghosthunter wrote:obama is no different then bush..or should i say bush was more liberal then he should have been

bailouts = socialism

More like Bailouts = fascism

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:19 pm

David wrote:Bailouts are hardly tantamount to socialism. Quite the reverse, actually. They demonstrate the level of corruption in our government, a de facto corporatocracy. Socialism would benefit the masses.

I hope all is well by you,
david

actually socialism never benefits masses, socialists thinks it does but in the end just a way of controlling the masses

either way bailouts are bad, all these companies and banks need to fail and our country needs to start over is the only way to fix it

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:19 pm

Burke wrote:More like Bailouts = fascism

for the first time in a long time i would agree with you

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:29 pm

Echoes of Gary Hart on September 12, 2001

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=P ... geId=87405

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:31 pm

Ghosthunter wrote:for the first time in a long time i would agree with you

That would be a flip flop.

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:34 pm

And of course, the globalist Soros.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/49b1654a-ed60 ... fd2ac.html

SeedOfChaos · Post by **SeedOfChaos** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:10 pm

I'm still all for a NWO, since the past and current WO have been and are **** IMO. Just not THE NWO "the elite" would like to see.

We have global problems that prompt global solutions, and global solutions can only come from some sort of global forum or government. In this day and age of transportation and communication mankind has no other choice than to coordinate globally. Just not in a global enslavement.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:19 pm

SeedOfChaos wrote:I'm still all for a NWO, since the past and current WO have been and are **** IMO. Just not THE NWO "the elite" would like to see.

We have global problems that prompt global solutions, and global solutions can only come from some sort of global forum or government. In this day and age of transportation and communication mankind has no other choice than to coordinate globally. Just not in a global enslavement.

1. Colonial wars...we need to abandon that concept.

2. Co-habitation...It's ok to co-exist, it's ok for us to be capitalist pigs while another country may wish to be hard line communists. Imperialism is dead.

3. Respect all sovereign nations, no one submits to globalization.

SeedOfChaos · Post by **SeedOfChaos** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:35 pm

UOD wrote:1. Colonial wars...we need to abandon that concept.

2. Co-habitation...It's ok to co-exist, it's ok for us to be capitalist pigs while another country may wish to be hard line communists. Imperialism is dead.

3. Respect all sovereign nations, no one submits to globalization.

re 1. - !!!

re 2 - I disagree in a certain sense. No, it's not okay for you to be capitalist pigs if that means capitalism like in the past and present - ripping other nations off for your own advantage (the entire west is guilty of that, not just the US of course). No, it's not okay for hard line communists to silence all critics and lead their population into starvation just because they feel like it.

I'm not wanting for all parts of the globe to be equal in all matters of policy at all. I couldn't care less for the car safety regulations in the US, Namibia or Indonesia. I couldn't care less what you teach your children in schools - as long as it isn't hate towards others and a closed mind.

I just want a common - democratic - cause of mankind towards certain global issues. Climate. Fair trade. Fair reward for hard work - wherever you are. Basic Human rights. Peace. The rest is minor detail and can be filled in by local governments to their own taste. Be they democracies, republics, theocracies, despotism, technocracies or whatever crazy form we can come up with. To be honest, I don't care if a single person dictates the future of a nation, as long as certain minimum standards are met. Like nobody gets shot just because they said something others don't want to hear. But if people wish for a King to rule a country, why shouldn't he, as long as he treats the people good? Also, it's not okay for any country to pollute the planet that we all live on much more than others.

It's just when leaders truly abuse their people that the global organization, government, forum, or whatever should step in a remove that - if it's the people's will.

Yes, imperialism is dead or belongs dead, anyway. No one nation or continent or bloc should rule all others.

re 3. - I agree, but with the limits outlined in 2, which are quite severe.

Post by **Philip** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:28 pm

SoC, who would enforce these ideas of common/democratic global issues ? Globalizing government, increasing their power just increases their reach/role to a degree where it becomes much harder for any relatively small (on a global scale) group of people to disagree... Therefore removing the ability to check/counterbalance any wrongdoing.

Any form of global forum/government would just amplify the issue of imposing "socially acceptable" rules, limiting freedom.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:15 pm

SeedOfChaos wrote:re 1. - !!!

re 2 - I disagree in a certain sense. No, it's not okay for you to be capitalist pigs if that means capitalism like in the past and present - ripping other nations off for your own advantage (the entire west is guilty of that, not just the US of course). No, it's not okay for hard line communists to silence all critics and lead their population into starvation just because they feel like it.

I'm not wanting for all parts of the globe to be equal in all matters of policy at all. I couldn't care less for the car safety regulations in the US, Namibia or Indonesia. I couldn't care less what you teach your children in schools - as long as it isn't hate towards others and a closed mind.

I just want a common - democratic - cause of mankind towards certain global issues. Climate. Fair trade. Fair reward for hard work - wherever you are. Basic Human rights. Peace. The rest is minor detail and can be filled in by local governments to their own taste. Be they democracies, republics, theocracies, despotism, technocracies or whatever crazy form we can come up with. To be honest, I don't care if a single person dictates the future of a nation, as long as certain minimum standards are met. Like nobody gets shot just because they said something others don't want to hear. But if people wish for a King to rule a country, why shouldn't he, as long as he treats the people good? Also, it's not okay for any country to pollute the planet that we all live on much more than others.

It's just when leaders truly abuse their people that the global organization, government, forum, or whatever should step in a remove that - if it's the people's will.

Yes, imperialism is dead or belongs dead, anyway. No one nation or continent or bloc should rule all others.

re 3. - I agree, but with the limits outlined in 2, which are quite severe.

Some folks do not want freedom or democracy. they want peace, stability, and safety. I have several Iraqis that work for me and guess what they all agree on? they want a good dictator that will keep them safe from eachother. The UAE and Qatar are prime examples of peaceful dictatorships. Even the terrorists that live side by side the Americans in Qatar know not to start any shenanigans.

Freedom will come to those that want it on their time table. Look at the fall of the Soviet Union. Yes, the west did help to foster the conditions for the collapse but that's it....no wars were fought, no shots were fired. I dare say that Russia's current form of government is much more desirable than it's former self.

We can't play world police...there will always be rogue regimes and criminals. We can't play world police force alone. Our intervention is seen as illegal occupation.

Let me ask you this, how should the world handle North Korea?

SeedOfChaos · Post by **SeedOfChaos** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:58 am

Our generation
Can be the ****ing one
That overcomes the greed
Of corrupt nations

Have no shame
You’re not alone in thinking
This is ****ing insane

Rise up and take your stand
And curl the fingers of your hand

And I don’t know what to do
Cause I don’t have the answers
But with ever ounce of strength
I’ll vow to fight this cancer

Didn’t say I want to lead
I just might let you down
Didn’t say believe in me
Just hold this common ground

I’m just as lost as you
And probably more confused
So ****ing far from perfect
My mind wrecked from abuse

There’s something ****ing wrong
When war takes sons and daughters
Our lambs misled to slaughter

--------------------------------

I couldn't say it better than Machine Head can. I don't have all the answers. But Evan, I'm not asking the US to police the world. I want a representative global council, not a single nation leading.

As I said, I don't care if kings ro Sheiks or whatever rule locally - as long as they don't torture or kill their population or deny basic human rights, etc.

SeedOfChaos · Post by **SeedOfChaos** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:00 am

Philip wrote:Therefore removing the ability to check/counterbalance any wrongdoing.

You guys got rid of the Bush regime without any outside influence... so it's not impossible.

blebs · Post by **blebs** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:37 am

SeedOfChaos wrote:You guys got rid of the Bush regime without any outside influence... so it's not impossible.

Umm no we didn't. We should have. We should have cleaned house a long time ago, but it never came to be. Bush ran his full legal 2 terms.

David · Post by **David** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:01 am

UOD wrote:Some folks do not want freedom or democracy. they want peace, stability, and safety. I have several Iraqis that work for me and guess what they all agree on? they want a good dictator that will keep them safe from eachother. The UAE and Qatar are prime examples of peaceful dictatorships. Even the terrorists that live side by side the Americans in Qatar know not to start any shenanigans.

Freedom will come to those that want it on their time table. Look at the fall of the Soviet Union. Yes, the west did help to foster the conditions for the collapse but that's it....no wars were fought, no shots were fired. I dare say that Russia's current form of government is much more desirable than it's former self.

We can't play world police...there will always be rogue regimes and criminals. We can't play world police force alone. Our intervention is seen as illegal occupation.

Let me ask you this, how should the world handle North Korea?

Great post.

It is a reminder from the past (OK... junior high school) that benevolent despotisms are the most efficient forms of government. Frankly, it is the strict adherence to rule of law that makes the difference. Knowing that you will be caught and punished maintains the straight and narrow. Not all peoples desire such a defined way of life, but indeed some societies function better with a tight reign.

SeedOfChaos · Post by **SeedOfChaos** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 2:25 pm

blebs wrote:Umm no we didn't. We should have. We should have cleaned house a long time ago, but it never came to be. Bush ran his full legal 2 terms.

Correct... but my point is that there is a limit of two terms (plus two years in theory), and that things can be changed and at least some mistakes corrected.

That said... it still astonishes me that Clinton got impeached (well, they tried) and Bush didn't.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:49 pm

SeedOfChaos wrote:
I couldn't say it better than Machine Head can. I don't have all the answers. But Evan, I'm not asking the US to police the world. I want a representative global council, not a single nation leading.

As I said, I don't care if kings ro Sheiks or whatever rule locally - as long as they don't torture or kill their population or deny basic human rights, etc.

The issues with a representative global council (NWO) is that sovereign nations submit to a global set of laws. Everyone has their own definition of basic human rights...some stop at just living lol. Many countries willingly accept collectivism and eschew individual liberties. As much as we want to guide them to the path of enlightenment, we cannot. They truly must seek it for it to take root and truly be a cultural change. We can't force adoption. We can push for peaceful cultural change but we can't force it through the use of international governing bodies as it's seen as an affront to the sovereign nation's priority of collectivism over individualism.

We have attempted to pry open these types of governments...not to empower, but to enslave to a monetary system of debt that is strictly controlled by a non-elected corporatocracy. We have not seen very good results. If democracy was controlled by the people that adhere to it's principles rather than institutions that look to exploit it for financial gain....things would be different.

But alas Seed.....the more things change, the more they stay the same. That's also from Machine Head.

It's great having you around again.

SeedOfChaos · Post by **SeedOfChaos** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:09 pm

UOD wrote:If democracy was controlled by the people that adhere to it's principles rather than institutions that look to exploit it for financial gain....things would be different.

That is what I mean when I refer to democracy or representation. Not the global corporatocracy we have incoming now.

Other than that we seem to think along the same lines. Of course you can't convince people with hypocrisy. And people wonder why those "uncivilized" countries won't accept our precious all out capitalism where people finance the bonuses of bank managers when they can't manage to generate a profit themselves. Of course all in debt, so more interest will keep compounding to enslave the next generations.

Anyway... move on, nothing to see here... *cough*

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:33 am

SeedOfChaos wrote:Correct... but my point is that there is a limit of two terms (plus two years in theory), and that things can be changed and at least some mistakes corrected.

That said... it still astonishes me that Clinton got impeached (well, they tried) and Bush didn't.

Bush never did anything that calls for impeachment

You might disagree with his policies, some of them i did myself i think he became too moderate and started these damn bailouts toward the end which were idiotic and now obama is doing the same thing but even worst

but other then that no reason to impeach him

clinton lied under oath, bush never did, huge difference

no matter what people feel about bush i think obama will be 100 times worst just what he has done in first two weeks he is going to be carter #2

triniwasp · Post by **triniwasp** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:54 am

Ghosthunter wrote:actually socialism never benefits masses, socialists thinks it does but in the end just a way of controlling the masses

either way bailouts are bad, all these companies and banks need to fail and our country needs to start over is the only way to fix it

So you don't believe that if a large number of these corporations fail the resulting chaos would make current conditions look like a dream come true? I'm just curious because that seems to be the prevailing belief.

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:58 am

triniwasp wrote:So you don't believe that if a large number of these corporations fail the resulting chaos would make current conditions look like a dream come true? I'm just curious because that seems to be the prevailing belief.

Rush hasn't touched on that subject yet, he'll have to get back to you on that.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:07 am

triniwasp wrote:So you don't believe that if a large number of these corporations fail the resulting chaos would make current conditions look like a dream come true? I'm just curious because that seems to be the prevailing belief.

let them fail...they need to fail on their own

that is how capitalism works and how our country intended on it when it was first created way back when

when the government gets involved they just make it worst, it might not be seen at first, and sometimes it looks like they fixed it initially but we only pay the price much later. do you really think this problem just started over night? it has been in the works ever since roosevelt and his intervention

bottomline is you cannot spend your way out of a recession

triniwasp · Post by **triniwasp** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:47 am

Ghosthunter wrote:
do you really think this problem just started over night? it has been in the works ever since roosevelt and his intervention

No, I don't; I do think the problem has many different facets, we can only influence a few of them however. Hence the focus on regulation, or lack of it.

Ghosthunter wrote:

bottomline is you cannot spend your way out of a recession

I think most economists would disagree.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:51 am

triniwasp wrote:No, I don't; I do think the problem has many different facets, we can only influence a few of them however. Hence the focus on regulation, or lack of it.

I think most economists would disagree.

you cannot spend your way from the government point of view

really the best thing for the govt to do is leave it alone it will fix it self, but they will do more damage if they keep trying to fix it while corporations keep spending billions on themselves from their rescue taxpayer money

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:06 am

Where are you getting all the bogus info, GH?

Bush never lied under oath because he's never had to testify. LOL

As to your opinion on economics, the founding fathers understood very well that capitalism shouldn't be unbridled.

On to the last part. Economits have been warning about a crunch coming for sometime now.

Let them fail? Are you really sure that's what you want? You make good money right now. Right? What you are talking about is a full scale depression. You probably won't have a job. Then what?

What's different now than during the 30's is that few people even have a clue how to take care of themselves without anything. Can't cook. Don't know anything about gardning, but hey..........let' them all fail. Ok.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:18 am

downhill

as IT i am not worried some people I know who lost thier jobs actually found jobs making more money and better jobs in the end. I read a list of jobs that were recession proof and IT is in the top ten

IMO the economy is not doing as bad as the media and the president makes it out to be, we are nowhere near a full depression. Did you know the recession was worst in 1982?

it is called fear tactics to spend our money and they are doing it purposely so they can keep spending

it is a precedent that obama is setting

heck look at the record for superbowl sales for ads 206M , which broke records

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090131/D962BAF00.html

The network said its total of $261 million in ad revenue for all of Super Bowl day also is a record, calling it an especially impressive feat in the middle of the economy's steep downturn.

this is great for me btw

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:26 am

Obama is spreading fear tactics? LOL He's been in office a week and a half and really, even Bush was trying to head it off. A precendent eh? What would that be? Using some of the same ideas that Roosevelt did? Because that's what he's doing.

1982 huh? Humm.........have you actually looked at the figures? Yes it was bad then. There was a HUGE difference. Banks and business's weren't failing at the rate they are right now and really, we've come no where close to hitting bottom.

Your job. Congrats! That should give you pause to feel thankful for the reality is, it's flat out scary on how fast all this is collapsing and it's not going to be long before it all really touches home.

You may celebrate Rush right now but you'll be cussing him right along with Bill Clinton in a few years.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:30 am

downhill wrote:Obama is spreading fear tactics? LOL He's been in office a week and a half and really, even Bush was trying to head it off. A precendent eh? What would that be? Using some of the same ideas that Roosevelt did? Because that's what he's doing.

1982 huh? Humm.........have you actually looked at the figures? Yes it was bad then. There was a HUGE difference. Banks and business's weren't failing at the rate they are right now and really, we've come no where close to hitting bottom.

Your job. Congrats! That should give you pause to feel thankful for the reality is, it's flat out scary on how fast all this is collapsing and it's not going to be long before it all really touches home.

You may celebrate Rush right now but you'll be cussing him right along with Bill Clinton in a few years.

Roosevelt is what put us here in the first place..like i said earlier

well maybe banks should not have been giving mortgates and loans to to people who should not be qualified and only people who can pay for it

people need to take responsibility for their own actions and stop looking for welfare and handouts from the governments which is what keeps getting us in the mess in the first place

as i have said we are not going to crash and all this doom and gloom, just let the economy fix it self without any govt intervention it is going to take some time

my guess the economy will get fixed Jan 21, 2012

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:41 am

Roosevelt put us here? Are you serious? lol
You need to revisit history.

GH, I wish you well but the reality is, you should be worried. Your location probably makes you more prone to not be able to take care of yourself than a good many Americans should it get worse for you.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:45 am

downhill wrote:Roosevelt put us here? Are you serious? lol
You need to revisit history.

GH, I wish you well but the reality is, you should be worried. Your location probably makes you more prone to not be able to take care of yourself than a good many Americans should it get worse for you.

I am only worried because we have obama and a democrat congress who only wants to spend

so lets just hope the next 4 years go by really fast, or maybe next election people will realize obama is a false messiah and get some republicans to take control of congress

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:50 am

read this article why FDR policies failed

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FD ... -5409.aspx

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."