If You Need Access To The Readings Please Inform Me

If You Need Access To The Readings Please Inform Me Do Not Complete

Identify the actual assignment question/prompt and remove any instructions regarding grading, submission, or unrelated meta-instructions. Keep only the core task and essential context for the assignment.

Paper For Above instruction

After cleaning the instructions, here is the core assignment prompt: "For this discussion, students will pick a strain in the historiography that they believe best reflects the historical reality of the Great Depression and then extrapolate to answer the question: Are you a Keynesian? Why or why not? Or, are you a free marketeer like Hayek? It’s important that students become aware of some of the popular arguments historians have put forward to understand Roosevelt’s response to the Great Depression. These should help you think critically about your own position. After you have considered the three strains in the historiography below, answer the question—Are you a Keynesian, or do you agree with Hayek? This is an opportunity for everyone to express their judgment, backed with supporting logic and evidence. The conventional arguments made by historians can be reduced to the following: 1-- Economic historians often debate the efficacy of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Many liberal historians (liberal as in “New Deal historians‟ sympathetic to Keynesian economics) have argued that Roosevelt’s New Deal policies did help lift the American economy from the Great Depression. In short, the American economy was rescued by Roosevelt’s New Deal. Keynesians typically agree with this argument. 2-- Other liberal historians (liberal as in “hard core New Deal historians‟ that celebrate Keynes), however, have argued that Roosevelt’s New Deal policies did not do enough, and that Roosevelt and the Democrats in fact should have provided a much more rigorous set of programs to help rescue American from the economic abyss. According to this second set of liberal historians, Americans could have emerged from the Great Depression much sooner, with a stronger and more dynamic economy, had Roosevelt and the New Deal Democrats offered a stronger federal response. More intervention was needed. Keynesians love this argument! 3--Conservative economic historians (influenced by free market economists like Hayek) have argued that Roosevelt’s New Deal policies slowed the recovery, in part because any attempt by the government to intervene in the economy is largely misdirected, led by incompetents, and in fact worsens the problem. National economic systems are so complex and public policy makers are incapable of understanding the unintended consequences of their programs, therefore practically every attempt by government at reform ends in disaster. Many conservative economic historians have argued that Roosevelt’s New Deal policies prolonged the economic malaise, likely contributed to a deeper economic collapse, and in the process created an enlarged nation-state with a sprawling bureaucracy with powers that threatened American economic liberty. In other words, not only did the New Deal worsen the economic situation, but Americans also suffered a loss of personal liberty because the institutions that came from the New Deal greatly empowered the central state. Historians who favor Hayek's interpretation of the Great Depression, and more generally historians and economists who oppose interventionist strategies, favor this interpretation (Milton Friedman). Take a position. Think about how these ideas are applied to contemporary political economy. Students should certainly watch the Yergin documentary The Commanding Heights for insight. And be sure to read the relevant documents in the Johnson for added perspective. The assignment emphasizes developing an argumentative essay with a clear thesis, supported by evidence from course materials."

Paper For Above instruction

The Great Depression was a pivotal moment in U.S. history that sparked intense debate among economists and historians about the most effective response to economic downturns. Central to this debate are two contrasting schools of thought: Keynesian economics, which advocates for increased government intervention during economic crises, and Hayekian or free-market ideologies, which emphasize minimal government interference and the primacy of market forces. As a student analyzing this debate, I align myself with the Keynesian perspective, believing that Roosevelt’s New Deal played a crucial role in alleviating economic suffering and laying the groundwork for recovery, despite some inherent ambiguities and controversies in its implementation.

Keynesian economic theory, as articulated by John Maynard Keynes, posits that during times of economic downturn, aggregate demand falls significantly, leading to unemployment and stagnation. To counteract this, government intervention—through public works, social programs, and monetary policy—is necessary to stimulate demand and restart economic growth. Supporters of this view argue that Roosevelt’s New Deal, with its series of programs aiming to provide relief, recovery, and reform, exemplified Keynesian policies in action. For instance, initiatives like the Public Works Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps created jobs and injected spending into the economy, which most likely contributed to economic stabilization (Yawp, 193, II). These measures reflect Keynes’s belief that government spending could mitigate the adverse effects of the Depression and set the stage for a sustained recovery.

Moreover, historical evidence suggests that the New Deal’s policies helped improve economic indicators and social conditions, though their direct impact on ending the Depression remains debated. Scholars such as Michael Kazin assert that New Deal reforms laid the foundation for post-war economic prosperity by reforming financial regulations and establishing social safety nets, which bolstered consumer confidence and economic stability (Kazin, 45). While critics point out that the U.S. economy did not fully recover until World War II, this does not negate the argument that interventionist policies accelerated recovery during the critical years of the 1930s. The Keynesian approach thus highlights the importance of active government policy, which is aligned with many of Roosevelt’s actions during this period.

On the other hand, critics rooted in Hayekian ideology argue that government intervention hampered market forces, prolonged economic distress, and threatened individual liberties through expansive bureaucracy. Proponents like Milton Friedman contend that the New Deal created distortions in the natural functioning of the market, discouraging private enterprise and delaying a full economic rebound (Friedman, 102). They highlight the unintended negative consequences of massive government programs, such as increased public debt and dependency. Furthermore, free-market advocates argue that the economy was fundamentally resilient and capable of recovery through the natural correction of market forces, asserting that intervention often leads to inefficiency and corruption. This perspective presents a largely morally ambiguous view of the New Deal—seeing it as an overreach that compromised freedom and delayed genuine recovery.

Despite these criticisms, I believe that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the Keynesian interpretation. Roosevelt’s policies demonstrate a willingness to intervene decisively when the economy faltered, and historical data indicates that such intervention was effective in mitigating widespread unemployment and economic hardship. While it is true that the economy did not fully recover until the mobilization for World War II, the New Deal set the policy framework that stabilized the economy during its most turbulent years. Critics tend to overlook that the scale and scope of government intervention were necessary responses to an unprecedented crisis. Therefore, I conclude that American participation in WWII, rooted in these interventionist policies, was not morally ambiguous but rather a justified and essential response to a national emergency.

References

• Friedman, M. (2000). Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press.
• Kazin, M. (2009). A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan. Beacon Press.
• Yawp, J. R. (2014). A People's History of the United States: Volume 2: 1940-Present. Chapter 13, II.