Article against FDR and the New Deal???

[MRoCkEd]

I need a good one for someone who thinks FDR helped the country out of financial trouble with the New Deal and that Obama will do the same with a New New Deal.

Anyone?

[forsmant]

How about a book? The Forgotten Man

Here is an article. (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409)

[Conservative Christian]

MUST reading on FDR and the New Deal:

Forgotten Lessons: Selected Essays by John T. Flynn

edited by Gregory Pavlik

Book Review:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0396g.asp

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/1840000/1843184.gif

[MRoCkEd]

The person called my sources anti-fdr propaganda. He says that FDR saved our country with a better monetary system and by putting people back to work.

Any good arguments against FDR's (1) monetary policy and (2) his labor plan?

[Conservative Christian]

The person called my sources anti-fdr propaganda. He says that FDR saved our country with a better monetary system and by putting people back to work. Any good arguments against FDR's (1) monetary policy and (2) his labor plan?

There are a lot of good articles on FDR and the New Deal here:

http://www.google.com/custom?q=FDR&sa=Search&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Ffee.org%3BGL%3A0%3BAH%3Acente r%3BLH%3A80%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.fee.org%2Flibra ry%2FVideos%2Fimages%2Ffee_main_header2.gif%3BLW%3 A740%3BAWFID%3A096be4eca32feac4%3B&domains=fee.org&sitesearch=fee.org



.

[MRoCkEd]

Any good arguments against FDR's
(1) monetary policy and
(2) his labor plan?

[nate895]

Any good arguments against FDR's
(1) monetary policy and
(2) his labor plan?

Use your arguments for the gold standard, because that is what FDR virtually eliminated for his monetary policy.

[nickcoons]

I need a good one for someone who thinks FDR helped the country out of financial trouble with the New Deal and that Obama will do the same with a New New Deal.

Anyone?

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409)

[Premonition]

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409)

15 years? What inane basket of propaganda are they picking from? The Great Depression didn't end in 1944, nor would it even be proper to say that FDR is to be blamed for the entire length of the Depression when nearly a fourth of that time it occurred under Hoover. If anyone should be blamed for prolonging the Depression, it is Hoover and his backwards views on immigration and tariffs.

The New Deal did help the United States. That's undeniable, in my opinion. By taking the United States off of the gold standard and freezing the spiraled mess, we recovered with astronomical success. It is not a coincidence that agrarian economies which already weren't based on gold, like China, managed to sidestep the entire Depression when their third world counterparts, India, didn't. Reversely, the first two countries to emerge from the Great Depression were Sweden and Germany... both were also the first to utilize deficit spending. I wouldn't damn laissez faire, but the corporate market which Republicans and some libertarians tout, and which is (rightly) criticized as capitalism. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9808

This brings us to the second conservative variation: military Keynesianism. While the first country to emerge from the Great Depression was Sweden, in 1935, using Keynesian policies to meet domestic needs, the second country to emerge was Nazi Germany, the following year, using military Keynesian policies.

One bit of information I noted from your link was the claim that unemployment remained high. This is only half-true. The unemployment numbers don't consider someone employed if they were working for the new government programs. The WPA enrollment isn't included, otherwise unemployment would have been around 4%.

[Conservative Christian]

FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

by Jim Powell


"In the minds of historians and the American public alike, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was one of our greatest presidents, not least because he supposedly saved America from the Great Depression. But as historian Jim Powell reveals in this groundbreaking book, Roosevelt's New Deal policies actually prolonged and exacerbated the economic disaster, swelled the federal government, and prevented the country from turning around quickly. You'll never again look at FDR in the same way."

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/FDRs-Folly/Jim-Powell/e/9781400054770/?itm=4

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/14650000/14656504.JPG

[Conservative Christian]

New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America

by Burton Folsom Jr.


"In this shocking and groundbreaking new book, economic historian Burton W. Folsom exposes the idyllic legend of Franklin D. Roosevelt as a myth of epic proportions. With questionable moral character and a vendetta against the business elite, Roosevelt created New Deal programs marked by inconsistent planning, wasteful spending, and opportunity for political gain—ultimately elevating public opinion of his administration but falling flat in achieving the economic revitalization that America so desperately needed from the Great Depression. Folsom takes a critical, revisionist look at Roosevelt's presidency, his economic policies, and his personal life.

Elected in 1932 on a buoyant tide of promises to balance the increasingly uncontrollable national budget and reduce the catastrophic unemployment rate, the charismatic thirty-second president not only neglected to pursue those goals, he made dramatic changes to federal programming that directly contradicted his campaign promises. Price fixing, court packing, regressive taxes, and patronism were all hidden inside the alphabet soup of his popular New Deal, putting a financial strain on the already suffering lower classes and discouraging the upper classes from taking business risks that potentially could have jostled national cash flow from dormancy. Many government programs that are widely used today have their seeds in the New Deal. Farm subsidies, minimum wage, and welfare, among others, all stifle economic growth—encouragingdecreased productivity and exacerbating unemployment.

Roosevelt's imperious approach to the presidency changed American politics forever, and as he manipulated public opinion, American citizens became unwitting accomplices to the stilted economic growth of the 1930s. More than sixty years after FDR died in office, we still struggle with the damaging repercussions of his legacy."

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/New-Deal-or-Raw-Deal/Burton-W-Jr-Folsom/e/9781416592228/?itm=16

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/33630000/33636350.JPG

[nickcoons]

15 years? What inane basket of propaganda are they picking from?

I agree, I wouldn't necessarily claim that the depression lasted 15 years. I was simply providing a link as the OP requested, which contained mostly true information.


The Great Depression didn't end in 1944, nor would it even be proper to say that FDR is to be blamed for the entire length of the Depression when nearly a fourth of that time it occurred under Hoover. If anyone should be blamed for prolonging the Depression, it is Hoover and his backwards views on immigration and tariffs.

I agree with that as well.. Hoover played a much larger role in worsening the problem then he is given credit for.


The New Deal did help the United States. That's undeniable, in my opinion.

But I adamantly disagree with this. It's completely deniable, and is done so regularly. Income taxes were increased to outrageous new heights, which has nearly the sole result of stunting any recovery.


By taking the United States off of the gold standard and freezing the spiraled mess, we recovered with astronomical success.

Huh? The beginning of the depression began with several stock market crashes, none of which were the worst in history, and it lasted for a grueling 10 years. Other economic downturns where government literally did nothing were recovered far more quickly, often within months.

[Premonition]

Huh? The beginning of the depression began with several stock market crashes, none of which were the worst in history, and it lasted for a grueling 10 years. Other economic downturns where government literally did nothing were recovered far more quickly, often within months.

Months would only be a suitable amount of time if you're comparing recessions to depressions. Although its effect on the United States is limited, the Depression of 1873–1896 was far longer than the Great Depression, and it decrowned the United Kingdom as the world's strongest economic power. It's also a peculiar fact that the UK was the only country which responded to the depression by not upping tariffs, which inadvertently made it suffer the most. Meanwhile, the more protective and welfare-oriented Germany (and Japan) advanced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression

There is no plausible way that the United States, upon FDR's election, would have recovered within even two years. We're talking about 40% recovery growth per year. That's unprecedented in any example.

As much as I love reading over Austrian and Chicago school responses, I have a hard time accepting the aura of Armageddon. Criticize the man all you want, but Keynes was onto something. It is hard for me to imagine that the only two countries who utilized Keynes before 1934 recovered first by coincidence. FDR was quoted as to saying deficit spending was "too easy." The USA really only pursued the policy at great length after the '38 recession.

Keep in mind I do identify as a libertarian, but I'm simply not convinced in theoretical assumptions. Too many libertarians and communists share this trait.

[nickcoons]

Months would only be a suitable amount of time if you're comparing recessions to depressions.

Government policies often create depressions out of recessions.


There is no plausible way that the United States, upon FDR's election, would have recovered within even two years. We're talking about 40% recovery growth per year. That's unprecedented in any example.

As I mentioned before, I agree with you about Hoover's share of the blame as well. Had it not been for him, FDR wouldn't have inherited the mess that he had.