The economy went down from 1929 until 1933. Then the economy started coming back up. There was very strong growth from 1933 until 1937, then a severe recession until mid-1938, then even stronger growth starting in mid-1938.
— sysprog

That was one of them and I have posted it before. Look at it --- do you believe a sober man would post such horse shit?

I ask myself why did he do it; and it can not be just ignorance. I got a high school text today to see what they say in the school books for children and it talked about the suffering and depression throughout the 30s.

I seems I have found two or three of UT's dumbest posters. You guys make shooter look sane!
— heru-ur

Okay, you've made your point. You are too stupid to realize that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in what sysprog wrote that suggests when the depression ended. I can't see why he wouldn't post it since it is all true. You've been shown the GDP figures that prove it: As measured by GDP the economy went down continuously from 1929 until 1933. Then it started to come up again and showed steadily increasing growth until the recession of 1937. 1933 is not the end of the depression, it is the beginning of the recovery. This is something that you simply do not seem to be able to comprehend. Nobody has said that times were great during the 30's — that's your dumbass assumption based on your spectacular inability to understand the concept of recovery and the difference between the beginning of recovery and the end of the depression. Mistaking the beginning of recovery for the end of the depression is a really dumb thing to do. Saying that the depression didn't end in 1933 is fighting a strawman because no one has said that the depression ended in 1933. If your reading comprehension skills were better you would understand that. There is still no one saying that the depression ended in 1933, yet you still keep flailing away at the same strawman.

This is it for me. I have explained this to you three times now as have a number of other people and you still don't get it. Even shooter has enough sense to stop when he has been indisputably proven wrong enough times.

The economy went down from 1929 until 1933. Then the economy started coming back up. There was very strong growth from 1933 until 1937, then a severe recession until mid-1938, then even stronger growth starting in mid-1938.
-- sysprog

How do you read that one? I read it as a very strong and growing economy from 1933 until 1938. And after 1938 even stronger. He claims the 30s were a little heaven after 32. Will he next call it the roaring 30s?

I read it the same way that any adult with an IQ higher than room temperature would: That the economy showed strong growth from 1933 to 1937. You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word 'growth'. Growth means increase. You'll note (actually, experience indicates that you won't) that sysprog says "strong growth" without saying anything about a strong economy as you claim. I read your retort as prima facie evidence of your reading comprehension difficulties. You can probably find a remedial reading course at your local community college that will help. If you look at the statistics, you will see the percentage increases in GDP over the years 1933-36, 1938-41. I would call anything over a 5% increase in GDP for a year "strong growth":

1933    6.5
1934    7.2
1935    8.3
1936    9.1
1938    9.1
1939  10.4
1940  12.6
1941  16.1

You should note (but again, you probably won't) that not only was there strong growth from 1933 through 1936 but there was growth to the growth. You should also note that the trend in growth didn't begin to accelerate until 1941 when the war manufacturing economy kicked in during the year prior to the US entry into the war. Finally you should note that the GDP was at 98% of the pre-depression level at the end of 1939 clearly indicating the even without the war it would not have taken another decade to reach pre-depression level GDP.

That is rubbish. It is no "straw man" to point that out!
— heru-ur

That isn't the strawman you were accused of setting up. But you will see (well, you won't, but everyone else will) that you have created another strawman by inserting "strong economy" into the discussion, when no one has claimed that the depression economy was strong. "Strong growth" and "strong economy" are not the same thing.

So are you running for Pope on a platform of proven infallibility and can't be seen to be wrong about anything, ever?

That was not the first post that started it all. You missed one and jumped in without knowing what started it you fool.
— heru-ur

Then please quote that post, because I have searched the thread and there is no such post. Unless you quote that post I will take it as an admission that you are lying in order to preserve your image of yourself.

And yeah I was smart enough to take the core economics classes as an undergrad before becoming a lawyer and if I desired could engage in this pointless discussion.

I too took a basic economics course as an undergrad. I remember economics as the course where it didn't do any good to have last year's exam. They always kept the same questions but just changed the answers.

It's interesting that you bring up Alf Landon and the election of 1936. More statistics for dummies:

Candidate                  Party          Elec.      Popular

Franklin D. Roosevelt  Democratic  523  27,751,597
Alfred M. Landon         Republican      8  16,679,583
Norman Thomas          Socialist          0       187,720

Looks like we might be heading for another one of those.