FDR and the New Deal

[Augustine2004]

Moderator, I think you should please move posts #72-75 to the public good thread. A.W. should not be allowed to continue to post off topic here.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Moreover, to spite FDR's campaign pledges ..... he was much more of an interventionist compared to Hoover (or anyone before him for that matter).

Yes I believe I even said that. Roosevelt took Hoovers failed interventionist policies and brought them to the next level. He also took us off of the Gold Standard to 'pay' for all of his spending(which was one action Hoover opposed).

My point, however, was that Hoovers interventionist policies(many of which were kept and expanded upon by Roosevelt), that turned a garden variety recession into a 'Great Depression' Roosevelt didnt help any by expanding the programs even more though thats for sure.

[bridgeforsale]

Moderator, I think you should please move posts #72-75 to the public good thread. A.W. should not be allowed to continue to post off topic here.

[bridgeforsale]

What kind of measurements would one take?

numbers for starters. Before I endorse tossing away a system that has produced the wealthiest economy in human history I'd like to see at least some numbers, graphs, etc.

He doesn't provide any quantitative efficiency data, just hyperbole and platitudes. For instance if one believes a private police department can work better than a publicly funded one then tell me why in real terms. I want to see data outlining the expenditures of a real contemporary police department versus projected expenditures of Hoppe's hypothetical private police department. In other words I'd like to see exactly how it will be more efficient before I endorse putting the public security at risk.

Moreover, I want to know exactly what sort of checks and balances he proposes to mitigate the obvious risk of abuse.

With regard to the military before I hand over my security to Hoppe I'd like to know how exactly his private army will defeat the Chinese or Russians if they decide to launch an all out invasion on our homeland; and yes I want specifics. I'd like data on exactly how many tanks, fighter jets, naval battleships, anti-missile defense systems, etc. he believes a private army can field. I want to feel comfortable with the fact that he understands the nature of the potential threat we will face. In other words I'd like assurance that he knows how many tanks, fighter planes, missiles, etc. the Russians and Chinese have.

But of course we get no such data in any work by Hoppe.

Surely the burden of proof is on the one proposing the use of physical force?

Here on earth surely the burden of proof rests with the one who is proposing the US abandon our time and battle tested military, and gamble away the worlds largest economy for a wild theory.

Or simply that there has never been (an cannot be) a controlled experiment regarding such things.

you know what they say about excuses? When a new business is seeking venture capital they must put together very detailed financial projections (based on a detailed analysis of things like projected market demand, production and marketing costs, and so on). So you don't necessarily need historical data. The problem is with Hoppe's theory is it's just that .... a theory. But what separates his theories from good and viable theories is data. For instance almost every theory in physics began without any historical data; but they all worked on paper when you crunched the numbers. Hoppe gives us no numbers, just hypothesis and platitudes. So there's no way to even test his theories on paper.

Also, his point is not that public goods don't have value, but that there is (logically) no such thing as a public good.

I understand that point .... what I'm saying is he's wrong. Sure anything could be viewed as a public good, and inversely anything could (in theory) be privatized. His point is simply that its wrong to select one good over another and designate it a public good; and IMO that's sophistic gibberish (I'm sorry to call it that ... I just can't think of a kinder way to put it).

A communist could use his logic and say there's really no such thing as private goods. The fact is we designate what we choose as public goods, and leave the rest in the private sphere, because we believe it serves our collective self-interest. The world has abandoned communism because it's been proven a less efficient model than capitalism. However, the world has also rejected completely unrestricted capitalism with no public infrastructure or safety net because that has been shown by history to be a less desirable model (and perhaps even less efficient, at least in some cases).

When you have the wealthiest economy in the world you're simply not going to have a great impetus for radical change.

Can you provide an example? (of such an area and how contrasting our current model against history reveals the current model to be clearly superior)

yes absolutely ... police forces. In the 19th century we had private police forces who worked for large corporations (heck we even had corporate towns). Those police worked at the behest of the business owners and managers, and quelled any dissent among the workers with brutality. Of course the workers had plenty to gripe about. They had terrible work conditions, employed young children who should have been in grade school, and all the other horrific labor practices you today see in third world nations.

There is historical and theoretical reason to believe many utilities are better provided without government-enforced monopolies of them.

I don't necessarily disagree with you .... but this sort of discussion cannot be simplified with platitudes. We the people prefer democracy. Safe work conditions, equal treatment by police officers, a public fire department, clean water and sewer services, a reliable and fair court system, a good infrastructure, etc. are part of what makes us a great country that people like to live, work, and operate a business in. We're not giving it up for Hoppe's radical propositions anytime soon I can assure you.

[Augustine2004]

For those of us who aren't robots yes we do have emotions; and yes when I hear someone besmirch a man who spent his whole life in service to this nation, I do take offense.

No doubt this item
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/33903.html
will offend AW. Putrieaus is of the same kind as Powell, IMO.

[odis]

in my experience, every time the government steps in to do something, it does a miserable job. obama's "shovel-ready" plan was anything but ready. bush's war on terror appears to have started more problems than it solved and Clinton led one pathetic excuse for a military campaign after another.

honestly i believe that conditions improved during the depression because the government had its own problems to deal with and stayed out of the private sector but my knowledge of what our government was doing politically during that time is rather poor. i do know that most of the programs the government has instituted at the time, initially did little to improve conditions.

[Augustine2004]

honestly i believe that conditions improved during the depression because the government had its own problems to deal with and stayed out of the private sector but my knowledge of what our government was doing politically during that time is rather poor. i do know that most of the programs the government has instituted at the time, initially did little to improve conditions.

Are you referring to the economic recovery that started after World War II? That had nothing to do with FDR's policies.

[odis]

actually i was referring to during the war. it may not have had anything to do with his policies but what i meant was simply, if the government stays out of the private sector, it will flourish. i do not mean to imply that the government should always stay out of the private sector.

after some research i only discovered that this topic requires much more research. the idea i put forward is the same idea i gained from my occupation. sometimes the government intervenes and implements something that does not improve how we do our work but it does improve the quality of life. however this is not normally the case.

[Augustine2004]

actually i was referring to during the war. <snip> i do not mean to imply that the government should always stay out of the private sector.

War is a time of great destruction. And except for preventing worse conditions (supposedly), how does an aircraft, say, contribute to the world's quality of life overall? Phooey on the idea that wars can spur economic recovery.

after some research i only discovered that this topic requires much more research. the idea i put forward is the same idea i gained from my occupation. sometimes the government intervenes and implements something that does not improve how we do our work but it does improve the quality of life. however this is not normally the case.

If the government must guess how to make the world better (make maybe billions of guesses every day), then it doesn't seem likely you can show us how the government can improve the quality of life. Remember, the government must take resources from the economy and somehow manage them better than the economy would. Central planning didn't work in the erstwhile Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics, did it? Is it working in the U.S.S.A. now?

[odis]

War is a time of great destruction. And except for preventing worse conditions (supposedly), how does an aircraft, say, contribute to the world's quality of life overall? Phooey on the idea that wars can spur economic recovery.

i have absolutely no idea what you mean by this unless you are asking for a way that an aircraft can contribute to life. if this is so, then ill just point you in the direction of transit. idk if you've noticed but its a little crowded on I-95... i sure as $#!& am not driving down to florida: i'm taking a plane.

If the government must guess how to make the world better (make maybe billions of guesses every day), then it doesn't seem likely you can show us how the government can improve the quality of life. Remember, the government must take resources from the economy and somehow manage them better than the economy would. Central planning didn't work in the erstwhile Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics, did it? Is it working in the U.S.S.A. now?

there are many businesses that make thousands of guesses. the problem is that the government isn't too great at switching plans when it finds out how horribly wrong it is while a business can usually figure something out pretty quick. not to mention i dont need the government guessing on things like, oh i dont know maybe my health, how much freedom i require, how much money i am willing to pay in taxes, and the like.

[Augustine2004]

i have absolutely no idea what you mean by this unless you are asking for a way that an aircraft can contribute to life. if this is so, then ill just point you in the direction of transit. idk if you've noticed but its a little crowded on I-95... i sure as $#!& am not driving down to florida: i'm taking a plane.

I'm sorry I goofed. I meant to write aircraft carrier.

there are many businesses that make thousands of guesses. the problem is that the government isn't too great at switching plans when it finds out how horribly wrong it is while a business can usually figure something out pretty quick. not to mention i dont need the government guessing on things like, oh i dont know maybe my health, how much freedom i require, how much money i am willing to pay in taxes, and the like.

1) The government cannot use the pricing data that businesses can obtain from the market. They can use the data to make plans. For example, a sharp rise in orange prices in Alabama may mean that new shipments of oranges are urgently needed there. Government actions do not primarily depend on pricing data. Price controls are somewhat exceptions, but they do illustrate my point. For example, what is the optimal level of house rent rates? Your guess is as good as mine! If police or military services are provided by the government, then decisions must be made that are not guided by market price signals. How many aircraft carriers should be built? How many police officers to hire? How to arm them?

2) There’s no way for the government to figure out what it is doing wrong. It must still guess. Businesses do have to guess to some extent, but they can use profit-loss accounting and analysis to figure out roughly what they are doing wrong.

3) Governments cannot remove the risks inherent in life, though they can transform them. Businesses can also transform them as services to their clients, such as insurance and security services. In the free market, clients are able to choose to suit themselves. Governments on the other hand must make ‘one-size-fits-all’ choices (well, guesses).

4) maybe I will think of some more reasons later.

[odis]

i dont disagree with anything you have said. which is why i want my government to make as few decisions as possible and leave the bulk of everything up to us: guide us, but no more.

[Augustine2004]

guide us, but no more.

I have no objection to the village-elder kind of government, like in parts of Afghanistan and west Pakistan. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean. And what do you think how the government will guide us wisely? We all somehow have to find out which of us are the wisest or can give us the best advice.

[odis]

of course. its a never ending battle to find the wisest and them have them watched by the most trust worthy....