Not true. Most standard economic texts will not point to government projects as the "event(s)" that "cured" the Depression.
In fact, the Depression wasn't technically cured until WWII was over. Most US citizens feared, at the end of the war, that the Depression would begin again.
Government projects helped to radically alter the economic landscape of the US, that is for sure. Rural electrification, conservation, and work programs all provided a good safety net. But they were not a cure, by any means. Most economists point out that the economy was beginning to slowly recover when some of these projects began.
But recovery isn't "ending" or "curing". It is a long process of development, and markets rarely react to a single source of stimulus, unless that stimulus represents a substantial portion of an economy.
What it is possible to say, however, is that alot of sources of recovery were enacted. Any one of which could be called 'the cure', if you take this approach:
all turns revolve around a pivot point, and if that pivot point represents a small percentage of the overall turn, that pivot point could be called 'the catalyst'. Example: 95% of the average US citizen knows who they will vote for prior to an election, in fact well in advance. So, basically, all elections are decided by how 5% of the population swings. Could we say therefore, that 5% of the population has "elected" the president? That would be a very hard sell. However, it would be fair to say they represent a point of departure. |
