FDR and the New Deal

[flaja]

I am in the process of reading Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal by William E. Leuchtenburg. I have studied history my entire life and took 40 credit hours while getting my biology degree. But Leuchtenburg raises issues that I have not seen anywhere before. FDR wasn’t the great knight in shining armor who rode forth to save the nation that popular culture would have us believe. Instead the similarities between FDR and Clinton are striking. Both FDR and Clinton took office without really having any core political philosophy. FDR’s New Deal wasn’t a uniform set of policy goals- it was more something FDR made up as he went along. FDR didn’t seem to be able to make up his mind about how to combat the Depression and he had advisors that usually had mutually exclusive socio-economic philosophies.

I’d like to get everyone’s view on what caused the Great Depression and why it lasted so long.

[seanD]

I'm anything but an economist expert, but from what I understand by the economists, it was a major world war that got the US out of a economic catastrophe.

[Augustine2004]

I'm anything but an economist expert, but from what I understand by the economists, it was a major world war that got the US out of a economic catastrophe.

Wartime is usually a time of privation. How could it not be? So many erstwhile farmers get busy killing other erstwhile farmers; doctors are busy binding up wounds instead of healing sick kids; vast resources used in weapons–bombs, aircraft carriers, LSTs, etc., which are then blown up. And so on.

Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. www.mises.org has plenty of words--use the search function.

[seanD]

The mainstream public "media" seems to be giving the impression that we're in a crisis, but the crisis will somehow be averted. It's interesting that there are extreme economists like Lyndon LaRouche, Marc Faber, and Gerald Clemente all predicting total doom, while more moderate economists like Peter Schiff and Nouriel Roubini aren't so upfront about it in public, but in private off-the-record interviews, they express the same views as their former colleagues. It seems that most people are in total denial, because the repercussions of a total global economic collapse are unthinkable. And I would imagine the moderates are just acting coy, probably because it's not very savvy to shout fire when you're a paid professional and want to still make appearances on mainstream media stations. But from what I've been hearing and gathering from the economists, the consensus seems to be that we're at the point of no return. There can be no possible recovery from the inevitable. And a major war, which I believe is on the horizon, will be the exclamation point.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I highly recommend the Amity Shales book, but be prepared to have your storybook image of FDR even more tarnished. I think he is a president that ranks up there with being one of the worst of all times, and his administration openly experimented with communism. It is also about that time that the presidency started turning into more of a cult of personalities with mass "personal" media coming into its own, such as his Fireside Chats.

We are paying the bill for the Great Depression today and then some. Nothing like selling out future generations.

[Dee Dee Warren]

The mainstream public "media" seems to be giving the impression that we're in a crisis, but the crisis will somehow be averted. It's interesting that there are extreme economists like Lyndon LaRouche, Marc Faber, and Gerald Clemente all predicting total doom, while more moderate economists like Peter Schiff and Nouriel Roubini aren't so upfront about it in public, but in private off-the-record interviews, they express the same views as their former colleagues. It seems that most people are in total denial, because the repercussions of a total global economic collapse are unthinkable. And I would imagine the moderates are just acting coy, probably because it's not very savvy to shout fire when you're a paid professional and want to still make appearances on mainstream media stations. But from what I've been hearing and gathering from the economists, the consensus seems to be that we're at the point of no return. There can be no possible recovery from the inevitable. And a major war, which I believe is on the horizon, will be the exclamation point.

I definitely wouldn't go that far. But I think we need to let the failures fail and not bail them out. It will hurt in the short term, but we have already seem what avoiding short term hurt does.

[Augustine2004]

A few readers may think this post is ridiculous. Off topic, even.

Today's For Better or For Worse comic strip starts with Elizabeth (toddler) making a request: "Mum-mum-mum-want up!!' The next panel: "Want Down! Nizzie want down!" The following one: "Ma-Ma! Nizzie want up!!!"

[flaja]

I highly recommend the Amity Shales book, but be prepared to have your storybook image of FDR even more tarnished.

I despise FDR and have since I was a was middle-school aged.

I think he is a president that ranks up there with being one of the worst of all times,

Ranking him in this manner is such a difficult task considering the numbre of bad presidents you have to choose from.

Buchanan would have to be the worst since the Union went to Hell under his watch, but then Jackson was not a whole lot better.

I think LBJ has to be ranked lower than FDR- at least FDR was concerned about breaking the federal budget and his welfare programs were not designed to destroy the family the way Johnson’s Great Society did. And Johnson’s destruction of the family made the damage of every Democrat since possible.

Carter has to be next worst- stagflation, Afghanistan, Iran. I don’t consider the occupant of the Oval Office from January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001 to be a legitimate chief executive of the United States since he wasn’t duly elected- only the electors from Arkansas and DC were chosen by a majority vote that a republican form of government requires. So far I wouldn’t put Obama any lower than the two above, but I have every expectation that he is on a perpetual downward spiral.

and his administration openly experimented with communism.

He also wanted the ability to rule by presidential decree if Congress didn't rubberstamp the laws he wanted made- something akin to what a certain amateur painter did elsewhere.

It is also about that time that the presidency started turning into more of a cult of personalities with mass "personal" media coming into its own, such as his Fireside Chats.

That would have happened whenever nationwide radio became available; it didn’t matter who was president at the time.

We are paying the bill for the Great Depression today and then some. Nothing like selling out future generations.

I don’t have a problem with the public works aspects of the New Deal- there are certain types of internal improvements that the private sector cannot do or cannot do in a timely manner because there is little immediate profit available. But some of the public works involved in the New Deal, mainly the TVA, were meant to compete with the private sector and should not have happened. And with Germany and Japan every New Deal public works should have geared towards national defense.

Things like FHA were just government give away programs, i.e., socialism.

FDR’s monetary policy that prohibited the private ownership of gold clearly violates the 9th Amendment, and his issuance of paper money with no gold backing mimicked Germany’s MEEFO.

I don’t have a problem with the concept of Social Security, minimum wages or maximum workweeks as means of regulating employment conditions- people shouldn’t be abused by their employers simply because they need a job and the free market would allow such abuse to take place. But Social Security as it was implemented was just an income redistribution scheme. Social Security should never have been mandatory; there should have been an opt-out option.

[Augustine2004]

Flaja, you are indeed 'not libertarian.' Like the socialists, you think the government can do more good than bad.

I started two threads, but people complained they had too many posts already, so why don't you just start with this post

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...41#post2705941

Come back here and ask questions, and I'll direct you to the two threads where you can attempt to prove your apparent belief that the government can make the world better than doing nothing to 'improve' it any further. Please note the scare quotation marks on 'improve.'

[joel]

I’d like to get everyone’s view on what caused the Great Depression and why it lasted so long.

You might also read:
America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard (http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/contents.asp)
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal by Robert Murphy

Also perhaps:
Rethinking the Great Depression by Gene Smiley
FDR's Folly by Jim Powell

This recent article http://mises.org/story/3515 is similar to my understanding of what caused the Great Depression and why it lasted so long. The short version is that the bubble (and then bust) was due primarily to Federal Reserve money creation. The recession then might have lasted just one year, but government-planning intervention (such as hiking up taxes and government spending, and the New Deal) prolonged and deepened the depression.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Thank you Joel, all of those except one were available on the Kindle, so I ordered free samples to taste them and maybe buy the meal.

[Augustine2004]

Dizzle, America's Great Depression is free online (PDF) http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf Some parts you may find difficult, but you can ask me or Joel.

[Augustine2004]

I'm anything but an economist expert, but from what I understand by the economists, it was a major world war that got the US out of a economic catastrophe.

Please let me add to my reply.

People couldn't buy stuff like shoes, tires, gasoline. What went into the war were virtually unavailable to the people. So, they had to save, and, boy did they ever save. That may have been the chief reason why 1946 was such a banner year.

[bridgeforsale]

Flaja, you are indeed 'not libertarian.' Like the socialists, you think the government can do more good than bad.

I started two threads, but people complained they had too many posts already, so why don't you just start with this post

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...41#post2705941

Come back here and ask questions, and I'll direct you to the two threads where you can attempt to prove your apparent belief that the government can make the world better than doing nothing to 'improve' it any further. Please note the scare quotation marks on 'improve.'

ahhh Augustine ... still at it huh? FDR was a great President, Hoover stank (how about them apples). WWII put us on the map ... before then we were stuck with Hoovers depression (and Wall Street antics that makes today's bankers look like Boy Scouts).

Reagan was great, Carter stank. Ever since Reagan it's been nothing but mediocrity (or worse). This country defeated the Nazi's, communists, Saddam is decomposing as we speak, etc. So the next time you see an American soldier (that is if you ever get out of the house) say thanks. Why is it that you economic nerds consider everything except real life and actual history? Sure Hoppe might look good on paper ... but in the real world (the one that I assume you're not all that acquainted with) he's an idiot.

[Augustine2004]

ahhh Augustine ... still at it huh? FDR was a great President, Hoover stank (how about them apples). WWII put us on the map ... before then we were stuck with Hoovers depression (and Wall Street antics that makes today's bankers look like Boy Scouts).

Reagan was great, Carter stank. Ever since Reagan it's been nothing but mediocrity (or worse). This country defeated the Nazi's, communists, Saddam is decomposing as we speak, etc. So the next time you see an American soldier (that is if you ever get out of the house) say thanks. Why is it that you economic nerds consider everything except real life and actual history? Sure Hoppe might look good on paper ... but in the real world (the one that I assume you're not all that acquainted with) he's an idiot.

I reread your post. Nothing but opinion. No attempt to show from first principles that our governments are really making the world better than following a laissez faire policy. Please justify your answer or at least make it seem worth some consideration. Not here in this thread, but you know where my 2 threads are.