So the stock market crashed, there were runs on banks, and people lost jobs...

So the stock market crashed, there were runs on banks, and people lost jobs. If the new deal was infrastructure spending then why was it criticised? What was the alternative?

Also was his reaction the opposite of the USA's reaction in 2008. FDR spent money on infrastructure while in 2008 they just bailed out banks while taking no government ownership?

It was criticized because 'muh free market feels'

Because it prolonged the Great Depression and even caused a secondary depression in 1935 (IIR).Historians who specialize in economic history of the US agree that both his and Hoover's New Deal (I hope you knew that Roosevelt based his New Deal on Hoover's) did more harm than good.
The best book to start with would be the Pulitzer-winning Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War.
There's also FDR's Folly which was written later and cites Freedom from Fear and other later works.

because
>taking government ownership
is ignorant as fuck

You need to understand something. When republicans complain about disliking spending, they are really talking about spending that benefits minorities or the poor.

They are not against spending if it benefits the rich, themselves, or the military.

Everything is spending. To get anything important done comes with a cost. It's just the different parties have different values and so seek to spend on different things. But everybody spends.

Conservatives also like to hold onto the fantasy that the free market will somehow fix infrastructural issues, but this is just that, a fantasy. Public works always operates on a deficit, not a profit. You are spending social resources to benefit society, not to accumulate private holdings on capital.

He stock market crash only brought unemployment up to 9% percent. It wasn't until FDR intervened that it became a full blown depression.

A lot of partisan faggots in this thread. FDR didn't cause the depression and depressions don't happen in a day, things got worse for years. The sad fact is that the government can actually do only a little. FDR's new deals real achievement wasn't that it ended the depression, it was that through social spending he took some of the wind out of the sails of the huge base of dissatisfied communists and socialists and basically saved the US from a coup. That base doesn't exist anymore because the far left is dead in this country, so Obama didn't have to do anything other than give cheap credit to banks.

>recommending Freedom from Fear while spouting trash opinions and not remembering/being to lazy to google the date of the 1937 recession

What a mixed bag of a post. Freedom from Fear is GOAT, but ignore everything else he posted. Especially that book written by that ass from the Cato institute, it's pretty trashy and very biased. The historical consensus is that FDR's New Deal gave Americans hope, but his obsession with balancing the budget meant that until WW2 we weren't actually spending enough to stimulate a recovery.

>le smug liberal Democrat face
Literally all you typed was one large strawman.

Everything he said was correct, you dumb faggot.

...

Cool that FDR was a good speaker. Shame that he followed Hoover's way and fucked everything up.

The "alternative" was to do what America had done the last time a depression happened: lowering interest rates, enacting tariffs and essentially letting the market sort its own shit out. But that doesn't make a good campaign platform so instead we got FDR's shithouse mess mish-mash of broken-window economics combined with a radically progressive and centralized social agenda, the legacies of which still haunt us to this day.

Actually FDR's first campaign was pretty against Hoover's interventionism and vowed to end his "socialism." Basically he was a populist faggot. But I suppose it's a natural for any human being to "do something" in times of crisis even if the opposite is the right way.

Except that as the WW2 spending proved, the problem was that we weren't spending enough, not that spending has no effect. Hoover and the New Deal policies simply failed to go far enough. Without them, things would have been even worse, difficult as that is to imagine. The '37 recession was caused by simultaneous spending cuts and contraction of the money supply. Not by Hoover's minimal relieve programs, and not by the New Deal.

I say this as a Dem: kill yourself senpai

FDR gave people hope, and the GDP bounced up as soon as he became president, because of it. Our economy relies on trust, and FDR made people believe in the promise of America. That's what great presidents do. Sadly, there is no future FDR in sight, but I think our country can withstand. Hopefully. If we don't give way to totalitarianism.

Nice bait

Nice bait

Why did the economy expand 1933-1937, and 1938-1954?

No you weren't, you samefagging shit poster.

I don't think most people understand that the economy literally relies on meme magic

If people think It will be shit, than It is shit.

Also I don't know If I'm just ignorant, but I thought the parts of the New Deal that people disliked where the social welfare programs and the heavy subsidisation of farmers but the programs like the WPA were generally seen as good things, albeit they could have been managed better, especially in regards to worker standards of quality and efficiency

thirded. also 7 dubs.

A lot of their faces look slightly chubby. I would have thought that in those times, and especially in times of war, people would have been a lot skinnier.

>FDR spent money on infrastructure while in 2008 they just bailed out banks while taking no government ownership?
FDR did more for corporate banking than any president in U.S. history.

It was the Union Army, not the Confederates. They actually had good food and supply lines instead up just trying to loot the countryside as their government tried to fleece the lower and middle classes out of as much money as possible.