New Deal was a success
-
trompos — 17 years ago(May 14, 2008 07:16 PM)
The bank holidays were NOT a success, if you want to take one thing and call it something else fine, but I'm not buying it. FDR's bank break ups, his treble tax raises, and the work relief which WAS essentially welfare (people mostly did unnecessary useless work) were huge disasters. FDR's policies have contributed to the huge overbearing bloated government we have today. He was influenced greatly by Soviet policies he had one advisor who had spent years in Russia observing the Soviet economic plans, what a great idea that was. The depression was PROLONGED and did not end until WWII. How could the New Deal have succeeded if the depression deepened in many ways into the early 40s? If Jim Powell's book FDR's Folly, is too long for you to read, read this shorter article by him.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3327
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% prou1c84d of it, copy this and make it your signature! -
saint_pat — 17 years ago(May 14, 2008 11:23 PM)
FDR's folly? The very title smacks of prejudice. No serious critic of the New Deal can claim it was a complete failure. And enough with the Russophobia! FDR didn't nationalize business or land, Stalin himself denounced the New Deal.
In 1939, America had recovered in every respect except unemployment, and even that had dropped by a third, MUCH better than in 1933. -
trompos — 17 years ago(May 15, 2008 01:02 AM)
Please show me the stats that support your claims. FDR's Folly is FULL of stats, if I have one criticism on the book it's that it is so full of stats and figures it's hard to follow at times. The fact is that many on FDR's staff were outright socialists and many went to the Soviet Union and came back with retarded economic policies. If you don't think land and business are owned by the government ask a landlord in NYC or any major city (I'm a landlord in NYC I can tell you first hand) ask any person involved in banking ask the oil execs who had to go before CONGRESS to defend themselves for committing the sin of making a profit, God forbid a business make a profit. Big government is the legacy of that stupid man.
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature! -
saint_pat — 17 years ago(May 15, 2008 11:35 PM)
It's not hard to find "stats" that support bogus claims, like that global warming doesn't exist. The fact is that Stalin, when interviewed by HG Wells, denounced the New Deal, pointing out that property and production were NOT in the hands of the state. I would think a man like Stalin would know if the New Deal was communistic. I mean come on, most Americans lived in poverty throughout Roosevelt's first two terms. Hardly socialistic.
Trompos, big government existed long before FDR, it's just that it was used to assist big business, not the little guy. And it's belief in JC that's the legacy of the stupid man. -
trompos — 17 years ago(May 15, 2008 11:58 PM)
Stalin would have known what socialism was? Please! Stalin was a strong man, he was NOT an intellectual and had no grasp of the intellectual foundation of socialism. Had you said the same thing about Trotsky, or Lenin I would have listened but Stalin was in no position to speak about what socialism is and is not. I never said that pure socialism was instituted in the US, God forbid, but MANY socialistic policies WERE instituted. We have what I refer to as pseudo-socialism.
"I mean come on, most Americans lived in poverty throughout Roosevelt's first two terms. Hardly socialistic."
WAIT! I thought the New Deal worked. Yet you're saying that for 8 years MOST Americans lived in poverty. Interesting.
Government has grown steadily since the founding fathers but "big government" as we know it as it has existed since FDR, has been a behemoth. The government prior to that was larger than the early history of the country, but not very big at all by today's standards. Government didn't "help" big business, it simply did not over regulate it as it does today.
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature! -
saint_pat — 17 years ago(May 16, 2008 01:02 AM)
Whoops! I meant communistic. And yeah, Stalin would know if FDR's policies were communistic. And actually, socialist policies have been implemented quite successfully in the US and Europe. Never has a catastrophy like the Depression ever re-occured.
You clearly didn't read through my full blog. The New Deal was a success in the sense that it prevented a complete economic meltdown, boosted industrial production, and reduced unemployment. I didn't say it was a total success. Unemployment and income inequity remained quite high. It was during the war that the New Deal policies really started to make a difference. Massive deficit spending, job training programs, price controls, unionization. This was when we saw massive reduction in poverty and income inequity. You say it took the war to get us out of the Depression, yet you don't seem to realize that the war economy WAS the New Deal magnified 100X.
Yeah, most Americans lived in poverty during the Depression, and you know what? Most of them lived in poverty during the 1920s too, before the so-called era of 'big government'. People were living on borrowed money in the twenties, creating an illusion of prosperity that didn't exist.
Government didn't help big business? That's a laugh. The government urged us into numerous wars for profit. The war of 1812. The Mexican-American war. Battles with Native Americans. That's only the half of it. It's no secret government has ties to big business, both then and now. -
trompos — 17 years ago(May 16, 2008 09:09 AM)
Again, Stalin was not a reliable source for determining whether a country was truly socialistic, OR communistic. He simply was not a man who studied such things, he was lead by passions, he was lead by ideology and was NOT lead by his intellect.
And NO, FDR's policies were NOT communistic, again, THANK GOD they were not. Communism would have been a disaster, so Stalin's criticisms were correct despite his ignorance of communistic theory.
"And actually, socialist policies have been implemented quite successfully in the US and Europe."
Successfully? So the failed social security system is a success? The failed socialized medicine in Europe. The broken economy of places like Sweden which I will address in more detail later?
"Never has a catastrophy like the Depression ever re-occurred."
The catastrophe of the great depression was BECAUSE of the New Deal. an 12 year Depression. The Average depression in the US lasted 6.25 years before the Great Depression. There were 4 other depressions and none lasted more than 7 years and none were as bad as the GD. In fact from 1929 until 1933 the Depression was not so bad as what it became from 1933 on.
NO the New Deal did NOT prevent an economic meltdown, again, it prolonged the depression. Unemployment was ARTIFICALY decreased through Work Relief and other bogus programs. It was simply glorified welfare. Like I said before, the minimum wage made TRUE employment drop even more and industrial production DROPPED. You keep coming to me with these "facts" with no evidence. Instead you tell me that my stats and sources are skewed but don't come up with any yourself. In 1874 there was a MUCH worse depression and government did NOT get involved just it took a few years before the economy recovered and on it's own. Out of that came a time of serious prosperity and produced men like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and increased the already large fortune of men like JP Morgan.
"It was during the war that the New Deal policies really started to make a difference"
No it was the war itself and NOT the New Deal that quelled the economic slump. From 1933 until LATE 1941 the depression rolled on and you seem to give credit to the ineffective policies that did nothing for 8 years. Economic booms follow victorious wars, that's just a fact, it would have happened with or without the ridiculous New Deal policies.
"People were living on borrowed money in the twenties, creating an illusion of prosperity that didn't exist. "
Sounds like Sweden. You know, the socialist "wonderland" that had to shift HARD from socialism in the late 1990's because the economy was broken. People were in DEEP debt and had the illusion of prosperity. You can look at the 1920s and say that most people lived in poverty, and by today's standards that would be true, but in the 1920s the standards around the world were much lower and the US was more prosperous than most.
"Government didn't help big business? That's a laugh. The government urged us into numerous wars for profit. The war of 1812. The Mexican-American war2000. Battles with Native Americans. That's only the half of it. It's no secret government has ties to big business, both then and now."
Laughable conspiracy theories. If you want to oversimplify all of these wars as some profit making scheme that's fine, but it doesn't make it true.
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature! -
saint_pat — 17 years ago(May 16, 2008 05:39 PM)
Trompos, you need to stop relying on a biased source material for your "facts". Unemployment was down to 14 percent in 1937, quite an improvement over 25 percent in '33. The only reason the Depression dragged on is because Republicans pressured FDR to balance the budget in '37. FDR cut back New Deal spending as per their request, and presto, another Depression! FDR was just doing what Republicans told him to do, and look at the results!
Trompos, you clearly have never travelled abroad. Swedes have some of the highest standards of living in the world. In fact, Sweden was one of the first nations to recover from the Depression, thanks to massive deficit spending.
No, economic booms do NOT necessarily follow victorious wars. The first few years after WWI saw a massive recession here. It was even longer lasting in countries like Britain, France, and Italy, and these were the victors!
In what sense was the US prosperous in the twenties? For the top 10-15 percent? Sure there was a lot of industrial growth, but it was all based on speculation and credit spending. The post-war years in contrast saw real wage increases across all income brackets, not just the wealthy. Hell, LBJ's Great Society Program reduced poverty by nearly half in under a decade. Such gains have never been replicated. -
trompos — 17 years ago(May 16, 2008 08:20 PM)
You're relying on artificial employment stats. The work relief which was not employment at all is the bulk of that unemployment drop. You can blame republicans all you want, that's what liberal socialists like you are famous for, but the truth is that it was FDR's very policies that prolonged the Depression.
I actually HAVE been to Sweden and speak from a position of great knowledge on the nation's economy.
"Sweden was one of the first nations to recover from the Depression, thanks to massive deficit spending."
Interesting you say this, as Sweden was not yet a socialist nation. Sweden shifted from laissez faire capitalism to socialism in 1932. That is 3 years AFTER the Depression hit. Let's also not forget that Sweden left it's markets alone up until the 1970's. The markets in Sweden from 32 until the mid 70's were HIGHLY unregulated. So to say that the "magic" of socialism saved the Swedes is wishful thinking. Not to mention the fact that Sweden was untouched by WWII they played both sides and were never bombed like the rest of Europe was. The standard of living song and dance is so tired. Everyone brings up the "standard of living" as plus when speaking of socialism. Sweden is a nanny state, and the government holds people's hands through everything, if you call that living then you and I have different standards. Sweden's economy was and IS broken. They got their money from the HIGH industrialization and very free markets it enjoyed it took about 20 years of PURE socialism to destroy the Swedish economy. Unemployment was THROUGH THE ROOF before 1991 when conservative party politician Carl Bildt took office. THe first time since 1932 that a non-socialist took office in Sweden. According to Forbes Mag (I'm sure you have a problem with the source, lol) the changes enacted (such as market deregulation) helped tremendously. Productivity climbed in Sweden by 47% from 1990-1999. The country remains HIGHLY socialistic however with still higher than normal unemployment, they still have high taxes, that's what it takes to have a cradle to the grave society. THe government was and IS actually paying people NOT to work. A person who was laid off got 80% of their previous wages. Sweden had t1ebche highest rate of unwed mothers in Europe because they were given governmental incentives to have kids, their maternity leave was VERY long and they were paid NOT TO WORK. Unemployment reached higher than 12% and there was even some controversy within the leftwing unions as to how high it actually was, some suggested the government hid the real data and the unemployment was as high as 20-25% businesses like Ikea was leaving the country. The taxes were 52% of the GDP. Most people were and are in debt in Sweden. It was business and capitalism that allowed Sweden to have the revenue to try this socialist experiment, when the money ran out, and business was stifled the fairy dust wore off. They killed the geese that laid the golden eggs. Market dereg has helped but deeper changes are needed.
"Hell, LBJ's Great Society Program reduced poverty by nearly half in under a decade. Such gains have never been replicated."
AHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for a good laugh on that one. I love it. The Great Society otherwise known as The New Deal Part II (I'm the only person who calls it that). We're still feeling the effects of the ND and even more the effects of the "Great Society" simply put, people like you feel the government i.e.. taxpayers who committed the grave sin of making more money, should give people entitlements, which would suggest that people are somehow entitled to work, and healthcare we have forgotten about the term "earn".
"The first few years after WWI saw a massive recession here."
The years following the war may have been hard employment was scarce but it soon turned around, when speaking of economies we can't speak in terms of weeks and months but of years.
"It was even longer lasting in countries like Britain, France, and Italy, and these were the victors!"
The war was fought IN those countries and it would take them longer to recover. And Italy was an Axis power so that really doesn't count.
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature! -
coxm-1 — 17 years ago(September 26, 2008 08:42 AM)
"FDR's New Deal took us off the gold standard, his minimum wage made it impossible for employers to hire people, employers willing to hire a person for a lower wage were suddenly told that they had to pay a certain minimum meaning that instead of a low paying job workers got a NO paying job."
You mean nobody, but nobody, ever got hired for a job once the minimum wage law was passed?