Great photo.
But I'm not sure how it informs us about economic policy.
I have to review exactly when the dust bowl occurred. I think that was roughly the time of this photo.
In any case, FDR's spending on gov't projects could be thought of as "trickle up" policies, right? TVA and the like pouring money into worker's hands. With the best of intentions and with some good effects*
Yet economists still cannot agree whether those programs and gov't spending actually helped or hurt the recovery from the depression.
Posting a photo like that in support of an economic theory is way simplistic, IMHO.
*the projects themselves seem to be an overall good. Rural electrification. The dams and associated structures of the TVA, some of which are lasting monuments to progress, just a few miles fom my home. I might be able to support that sort of stimulus, especially something like "Rails to Trails". This administration's choice of allegedly "shovel-ready" projects for stimulus spending seems to show a shocking lack of vision.
(emphasis mine) Eddie, if my post seems confrontational I assure you it's not meant to be. I'm trying to make a point without being provocative. Though I studied economics at the University and have read books on economics since, I'm not an expert. I'm not trying to win a debate, I'm trying to contribute to the dialog.
By itself the photo is simply an appeal to emotion. Even at its best it cannot justify an economic theory.
What is the theory for "trickle up" not to work (not to stimulate the economy)? Is it the idea that poor people bury the money in their back yard (I know it sounds snarky but there is a purpose to the question)? Is it that poor people put their money in over seas investments or that they purchase goods and services from oversees companies largely bypassing American interests? Is it that poor people spend the money primarily among themselves, pooling the money at the lower tiers of society thus there is little chance for the money to move up the food chain?
I easily understand how money at the top can stay at the top. I've no theory for the reverse. I've never heard one proposed. 1 man earning $1M annually could move his money off shore, purchase foreign goods, hire employees in India. 33 people each making $30k annually have little choice but to invest locally. That I get. Henry Ford believed that if he paid his workers more then there would be more money in the hands of people who could purchase a wide variety of goods and services from a large number of American vendors.
Now, I'm not saying it's a panacea or will always work with any amount of money. Economies in societies the size of America are very complex dynamic things. They are chaotic and thus sensitive to initial conditions.
Further, since economies like America's are chaotic, and since our manufacturing was left intact after the war and we could supply many goods and services to the rest of the world, the question, assuming FDR's policies worked, then how much did they contribute?
