How Did The New Deal Affect The Economy Of The 1920s

Zinn argues that the economic growth in the 1920s wasn't nearly as good as it was portrayed and claims that any of the increase in money was for those at the top, leaving the middle and lower class oppressed. From the 1920s to even today, Zinn claims that the government and many capitalists have worked at keeping the working class oppressed to keep them on top. This meant that the government made sure to stop any spread of socialist views. Mainly, Zinn believes that the 1920s didn't bring prosperity like it claims. In reality, workers got slightly higher wages but in his theory it is so the workers would stop rebelling after being given just the right amount of money. The crash of the stock market was another ugly truth about the 1920s. Due

They also argue that the Roosevelt administration was not organized which had an effect on how power was delegated. In the article, they openly talk about how the New Deal wasn't nearly as beneficial for the economy and capitalism as the war did. The authors also talk about how FDR felt on certain policies. For example, he wanted to limit parts of the economy, but due to the war, certain areas grew and produced strong profits. Also, through the New Deal, Roosevelt was able to increase the size of the Federal government. At the time it seemed like a good idea, but it ended up have negative effects in the long run. Overall, the authors argue that the New Deal wasn't strong enough and only took care of a few problems with temporary fixes to them that instead of solving the root problem just patched a few issues, which just lead to more problems down the road for the

The authors of A Patriot's History made a strong point that the war boosted the economy and helped solve the economic depression which I believe is true. During war as a nation we were able to produce and sell war goods that helped jumpstart the economy and can even be proven by looking at unemployment rates before and after the war. However, I disagree with them that the New Deal wasn't very effective. Based purely off numbers, workers were paid more, hours were shortened, welfare was increased and unemployment was cut. To me, that is progress even if it was only temporary which is why I think they are wrong in saying the New Deal didn't work. Regarding Zinn’s argument, I agree with the part that he says the 1920s were not as prosperous as they seemed. Much of the working class saw little improvement financially while the top percentage of the wealthy saw huge gains. This proves that there was some form of oppression against the working class upheld by the rich. Another aspect I found interesting was an area that both Zinn and the authors of A Patriot's History saw common ground. Both believe the New Deal was not very good for the US to some degree. Zinn speaks on more of the capitalism behind the New Deal and openly bashes it as a weak economic system that cannot be trusted. On the other hand the two authors from A