Presidents and what you think about them

[cookiecutter]

All right, I'll take a crack at this. One thing I would like to make clear (I should've done this earlier, but I wasn't giving as detailed a response then) is that I don't think the New Deal and FDR completely saved the country from the Great Depression, but I do think it is false to argue that it worsened it.

And I'd point out that if that's all there is to your line of reasoning then you are committing a blatant fallacy. The sun rose this morning, and now I'm drinking beer. Does that mean the rising of the sun caused my current beer drinking? How exactly do you know that unemployment decreased because of the New Deal and not despite it?

Well the government was directly employing people through the "alphabet soup" programs so it seems reasonable to me to associate the New Deal with a reduction in unemployment. Whether or not this then corresponded to increase private sector employment is hard to say, but you can't just write off the government employing people, and therefore putting money into the economy.

I'd also point out that it seems extremely odd that the longest and most severe depression by far in our history occurred during a period of state intervention into the economy whose extent was unprecedented up to that point. I don't know about you, but that seems just a little bit odd to me.

Alright, come on. Lets looks at some dates. It is generally accepted that the Great Depression began in 1929, a full three years before FDR took office. The New Deal did not begin until 1933. The previous administrations were extremely anti-interventionist. Can we then blame the depression on them? (I would partially but that's not what we're arguing). State intervention was a response to, not a cause of the depression.

Now it gets trickier if you're arguing that it prolonged a depression caused by other things.

How exactly did Roosevelt get us out of this? How confident are you in the assertion that the unemployment rate would have been higher at that point had Roosevelt never done any of the things he did?

You got me here as I can't really say that he got us out of it. I'd moderate my conclusion to, lessened the impact. I am pretty confident in the second assertion because I believe that government spending produces demand which then stimulates the economy. Also the fact that the labor movement and many farmers saw serious gains due to New Deal policies. Also federal employment as a I mentioned earlier.

I'll point out a few factors involved in prolonging the depression. For one thing, evidence from public opinion polls and bond markets during the time indicates that Roosevelt's policies reduced the confidence of investors in the stability of private property rights. A predictable effect of this is that long-term private investment was prevented from fully recovering. Another factor is the National Recovery Administration, one of Roosevelt's most significant measures. The direct result of the NRA was a rise in labor costs, which meant that in just 6 months after the NRA took effect, industrial production dropped by 25%. From 1937-1938 the economy went through a sharp secondary depression. During this time unemployment rose from 14.3% in 1937 to 19% in 1938. It is significant that one major part of the New Deal was the Banking Act of 1935, which gave the Federal Reserve authority to mandate an increase in required reserve ratios for commercial banks, which, I think, played a large role in the 1937-1938 depression, though there were probably other factors involved. At any rate, that set back recovery for a number of years.

I've done some reading and you are right to criticize the NRA. It was poorly implemented. However I don't think you can cherrypick one organization out of the many that were created. Do you believe investor confidence is the only thing that can improve an economy? Frankly I'm a little out of my depth when it comes to financial policy, but from reading historians, most seem to support my conclusion. I'm not using this as an argument, just explaining where I'm coming from. I tend to look at things like this from a more zoomed out perspective and see that things generally improved after the New Deal and that aggressive government responses have proven effective elsewhere, so it stands to reason that it worked here.

I disagree. Cutting off the lifeblood of a nation's war machine (oil, metals) while at war was plenty of reason to expect an attack. Anyone who thinks otherwise shouldn't be allowed to waste resources reading history books or anything with military relevance.

Oh absolutely they new war was coming. They even knew war was coming imminently around that time. That has never been in doubt. What they didn't know though was where and when. This is similar to 9/11 in many ways (ie "Bin Laden determined to attack America" memo). It can hardly be considered baiting someone to attack you though when they are the aggressor, both in the war that prompted the embargo (China), and the actual war. It's a little unfair to expect the US to stay totally isolationist when another nation has acted very hostile towards it and its allies. Its unfair to excuse Japan's behavior and put the blame entirely on the US for starting the war.

#1 Britain never should have been an ally. Their military has been a joke since WWI (lack of manpower if for no other reason). Again, we wouldn't have even been in the predicament of needing to stop a guy like Hitler if we hadn't been involved in WWI. Imperial Germany was arguably better or at least equal in "moral standing" to any of the countries it expanded against.

We're getting into counter factual history now which is always dangerous territory. Whether or not we would've need to stop Hitler had we done something else is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we did need to stop Hitler. To compare later US military intervention to the ones against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan is unfair because the massive power and evilness differences between those two opponents and all of the Americans future opponents.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well the government was directly employing people through the "alphabet soup" programs so it seems reasonable to me to associate the New Deal with a reduction in unemployment. Whether or not this then corresponded to increase private sector employment is hard to say, but you can't just write off the government employing people, and therefore putting money into the economy.

It's not the government's responsibility to feed money into the economy, even when it stagnates. If our government starts pouring money out into the private sector the cost of the dollar will be driven down; furthermore, the government now has stakes in what it's supposed to be separate from.

Human welfare is a powerful component to sway public opinion.

EDIT: I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable in these areas as the three involved in the argument; but I'm enjoying this discussion and can't help but post.

 

[Cythraul]

but you can't just write off the government employing people, and therefore putting money into the economy.

Sure I can, because (1) if the government is deciding where to direct resources, there's almost no reason to think that it's doing so efficiently and profitably. The government simply cannot rationally calculate what the most efficient allocation of resources is. That's what the price system and profit and loss are for, and (2) even if it's just a matter of government putting money into the economy, ask yourself where it gets that money. It gets it either by sucking it out of the private sector or by turning on the printing press, and the latter, in case you weren't aware, distorts the structure of production.

Alright, come on. Lets looks at some dates. It is generally accepted that the Great Depression began in 1929, a full three years before FDR took office. The New Deal did not begin until 1933. The previous administrations were extremely anti-interventionist. Can we then blame the depression on them? (I would partially but that's not what we're arguing). State intervention was a response to, not a cause of the depression.

I don't know about that. The Hoover administration seemed pretty interventionist to me. Maybe not by the standards of textbook Keynesianism or what have you, but interventionist it most certainly was. In fact, Hoover advocated for propping up wage rates. Increasing unemployment is a predictable consequence of holding wages above their natural market-clearing levels. In fact, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff incentivized firms to prop up wages. Furthermore, many of the tariff increases that were a part of Smoot-Hawley were rather large. Other examples of interventions under the Hoover administration included unemployment subsidies, public works projects, and increased farm subsidies. There's more, but you get the point.

You got me here as I can't really say that he got us out of it. I'd moderate my conclusion to, lessened the impact. I am pretty confident in the second assertion because I believe that government spending produces demand which then stimulates the economy.

This assumes that recessions are simply a fall in aggregate demand. I'd argue that in fact they're corrections of malinvestments/misallocations of resources (including labor). If that's the case, then simply pumping money into the economy is not exactly geared toward economic rationality.

Also the fact that the labor movement and many farmers saw serious gains due to New Deal policies. Also federal employment as a I mentioned earlier.

And these are productive and good for the economy how?

Do you believe investor confidence is the only thing that can improve an economy?

No, but a lack of it is certainly bad for an economy.

 

[razoredge]

Wasnt the fuel behind the great depression over investment and over optimism during another falsely stimulated economy, not unlike what has just recently happened ? Then reality struck and people began jumping out windows ? (not enough... LOL) Could it have been the bi-product of the roaring twenties ?

Then further plumeted because bankers began calling in debt that no one could pay ?

It erks me that government allows these booms and bubbles to happen.

If the government programs did not decrease unemployment it was due to people not dying of starvation thus reducing the numbers of unemployed. Those that worked the CCC earned enough to send home to barely feed thier families and other than that got bunk and gruel to keep themselves alive.

Through the government cheap buyout of the farm land worked by the CCC, the Fed got land... eventually turned over to the States that is still today bringing great revenue in timber sales and hunting licences to those States. Which here in NY goes into the general fund not back into the forests and still the State governments are broke. Most likely results of the counter productivity of the New Deal via welfare sucking the State funds dry. Good grief does this take us clear back to that damn Abe Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclaimation ?

The Hoover Dam was built, what else ? Point being I dont think it was all bad spending, perhaps a bigger problem that things like work programs after WWII rather than a continuence of welfare did not occur.

No matter how I weight it all out in the end I always come up with more familys to feed than jobs to employ. Economies can be stimulated to look good for awhile but there will always be a price to pay and its all based on growth and consumerism, disposibility... both very costly and no substitute for subsistence which will never work for the mass population either.

 

[Dak]

Oh absolutely they new war was coming. They even knew war was coming imminently around that time. That has never been in doubt. What they didn't know though was where and when. This is similar to 9/11 in many ways (ie "Bin Laden determined to attack America" memo). It can hardly be considered baiting someone to attack you though when they are the aggressor, both in the war that prompted the embargo (China), and the actual war. It's a little unfair to expect the US to stay totally isolationist when another nation has acted very hostile towards it and its allies. Its unfair to excuse Japan's behavior and put the blame entirely on the US for starting the war.

I am just going to let Cyth handle the economic side of this because I don't feel like just repeating everything he says.

It's interesting you compare 9/11 to Pearl Harbor. Hell, you could compare it to the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin "incident"(now declassified, we are told it was a hoax by the Govt), the USS Liberty "incident", Fort Sumter, etc.

In every case, the attacks on America were either allowed to happen, or were specifically provoked, so that the crook in office could get on Radio/TV and claim "America has been attacked by evil forces for no reason other than that they are evil, this will not stand blah blah blah." The US Liberty incident was the exception, and that was because it failed to sink. Any remotely conspiratorily leaning historians believe it wa supposed to sink, the Arabs would get blamed, and thus give us a reason to enter into the "Six Day War". Since it didn't sink, Israeli military was identified by the survivors, and then it was officially swept under the rug as soon as possible.

The government of this country has been dragging the US into wars over and over and over using the same blatantly obvious tactic. For 9/11, just like in Pearl Harbor, the intelligence was there, and there was time for action, but the higher brass/officials didn't allow action.
To believe that with a threat to the Pentagon, that part of the reason the sorry-we-took-forever-to-get-airborne interceptor jets would have been allowed to cruise over at a fraction of their top speed (without being told to) takes serious head-in-ass skills, which I believe it also takes to think that even the possibility of an attack on the naval forward base at Pearl Harbor would have been ignored.

We're getting into counter factual history now which is always dangerous territory. Whether or not we would've need to stop Hitler had we done something else is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we did need to stop Hitler. To compare later US military intervention to the ones against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan is unfair because the massive power and evilness differences between those two opponents and all of the Americans future opponents.

I don't think it is counter factual to point out cause and effect. Hitler rose to power because of the condition of Germany post-WWI due to the ridiculous restrictions placed on it at the treaty of Versailles. Between the economic restrictions and having to pay reparations, the country quickly went belly up and suddenly Hitler shows up on the scene making Obama-like promises (like national health care, a return to glory/respectability, etc.), with Obama-like oratory skills, and voila, a delusional psychopath gets elected.

I also don't see how you can claim that Imperial Japan and even Nazi Germany were any worse than what we left the "freed" countries under in most cases, which was communist (Soviet Russian exported mainly) occupation or influence. Trading one dictator for another is not improvement, just because one is less powerful.

 

[Mentok]

http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz37/timelessassasin/abratron.jpg

I thinking Lincoln had a secret agenda...

 

[Badbird]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy



Now I learn who wins in the south

 

[Pessimism]

http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz37/timelessassasin/abratron.jpg

I thinking Lincoln had a secret agenda...

 

[Badbird]

 

[Badbird]

Anyone here like James K Polk? I feel he underrated by lot of people. Texas, California, and other states wouldn't have came had it been for him.

 

[Einherjar86]

He also invented Polka.

 

[Badbird]

I lol'd


http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/James_Knox_Polk

 

[Badbird]

BUMP

Is Obama the worst president ever? Lot of people on Yahoo Answers and City-Data forums think he is. Also a big dislike I see for Wilson and FDR as well.

 

[Badbird]

I was just reading about Warren G Harding. He must be up there with Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan, as the worst president of the United States Of America.

 

[Destructo_Pat]

BUMP

Is Obama the worst president ever? Lot of people on Yahoo Answers and City-Data forums think he is. Also a big dislike I see for Wilson and FDR as well.

Nah, Dubya was the worst.

America hasn't had a good Republican since Theodore Roosevelt.

 

[Badbird]

I like Dwight Eisenhower alot. Richard Nixon could of have been a great president. The bad things coast him in the running.

 

[Badbird]

Interesting video, from cookiecutter favorite president and Dakryn least favorite.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

George Washingballs
Thomass Jeffershart
James Manhoe
Andrew Jacksoff
Martin Van Drunen
William Henry Harrisack
Millard Fillwhores
James Bukkakenan
Abrahand Lincunt
Andrew Johnson
Chester A. Arfuck
Groper Cleavage
William McKinkley
William Howlongismy Shaft
Woodgrow Wilsuck
Warren Hardon
Herbert Dickhoover
Dwight Seimenshower
Ronald Preggin'
Gorgeous Bush
Bill Clitton
Barock-hard-cock in Yomama

 

[Badbird]

George Washingballs
Thomass Jeffershart
James Manhoe
Andrew Jacksoff
Martin Van Drunen
William Henry Harrisack
Millard Fillwhores
James Bukkakenan
Abrahand Lincunt
Andrew Johnson
Chester A. Arfuck
Groper Cleavage
William McKinkley
William Howlongismy Shaft
Woodgrow Wilsuck
Warren Hardon
Herbert Dickhoover
Dwight Seimenshower
Ronald Preggin'
Gorgeous Bush
Bill Clitton
Barock-hard-cock in Yomama

 

[Krow]

BUMP

Is Obama the worst president ever? Lot of people on Yahoo Answers and City-Data forums think he is. Also a big dislike I see for Wilson and FDR as well.

Everyone always thinks the current president is the worst ever.