Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 17 Jul '09 02:01
    http://mises.org/rothbard/AGD/chapter11.asp

    The Federal Reserve caused TGD, and Hoover and FDR extended it through their keysian policies
  2. 17 Jul '09 02:12
    Originally posted by voltaire
    http://mises.org/rothbard/AGD/chapter11.asp

    The Federal Reserve caused TGD, and Hoover and FDR extended it through their keysian policies
    uhhhh......I didn't think John Maynard Keynes's ideas were put into practice until the early 40's. Certainly Hoover didn't know who he was.

    I think.
  3. 17 Jul '09 02:50
    Originally posted by Sam The Sham
    uhhhh......I didn't think John Maynard Keynes's ideas were put into practice until the early 40's. Certainly Hoover didn't know who he was.

    I think.
    the policies are the same. dont be a douche
  4. 17 Jul '09 03:27
    Originally posted by david haworth
    the policies are the same. dont be a douche
    Hoover had nothing to do with Keynes or his ideas. It was Franklin Roosevelt that met him and made his concepts part of his administration.

    Don't you be a douche.
  5. 17 Jul '09 04:38
    Originally posted by Sam The Sham
    Hoover had nothing to do with Keynes or his ideas. It was Franklin Roosevelt that met him and made his concepts part of his administration.

    Don't you be a douche.
    yer splittin hairs. it doesnt matter what it was called, they were the same policies
  6. 17 Jul '09 04:44
    Originally posted by Sam The Sham
    Hoover had nothing to do with Keynes or his ideas. It was Franklin Roosevelt that met him and made his concepts part of his administration.

    Don't you be a douche.
    i know im just saying your point was irrelevant, you knew what he was trying to say.doesnt mean i agree with the OP
  7. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    17 Jul '09 09:22
    Originally posted by voltaire
    http://mises.org/rothbard/AGD/chapter11.asp

    The Federal Reserve caused TGD, and Hoover and FDR extended it through their keysian policies
    Like I would trust anything put out by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Frauds and charlatans.
  8. 19 Jul '09 06:25
    Time mentioned the same idea in their FDR cover issue a week or two ago.
  9. 19 Jul '09 12:19
    Originally posted by voltaire
    http://mises.org/rothbard/AGD/chapter11.asp

    The Federal Reserve caused TGD, and Hoover and FDR extended it through their keysian policies
    Not true. FDR was re-elected in a landslide in 1936, by a margin of 60.8% to 36.5% of the popular vote, and 523 to 8 Electoral College votes. This reflects the overwhelming success of the New Deal during his first term. Economic measures including GDP and unemployment rates also show that the economy was clearly recovering.

    FDR slowed his domestic spending in 1937, leading to a relapse into recession. Soon after this, WW2 necessitated levels of deficit spending far in excess of what was necessary to fix the economy, so the Depression became a non-issue. Also, the US emerged from WW2 stronger than the other major powers.

    Spending that's directed towards low-to-middle income earners is the most effective at fixing a recession, and this kind of targeted domestic spending is typically superior to military spending for this purpose. This is due to the declining marginal utility of money principle: the rich and corporations spend a lower proportion of their income on basic needs or involuntary spending, and particularly so during a recession.

    What did Hoover do to prolong and deepen the Great Depression? He avoided directing money towards the unemployed, out of a belief that handouts for the poor were a bad idea. This had a similar effect to killing cats during the Black Plague, out of a belief that the plague was sent by the devil, when in actual fact this made the plague spread faster because the cats were killing rats that spread the plague.

    The stockmarket crash and Great Depression were caused by the fiscally conservative policies of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. The Depression was prolonged by Hoover continuing these policies for most of his term. When FDR commenced domestic spending, the Depression started to ease significantly.

    The last three Republican presidents differ from Harding, Coolidge and Hoover in that the 1920s Republicans were fiscal conservatives whereas the Reagan-Bush era Republicans have been borrow-and-spend neocons. Even after kicking the homeless out on the street and making other cuts to domestic spending, Reagan still increased overall govt spending by around 70%, making him the -least- fiscally conservative president since WW2. Even Lyndon "we can afford both guns and butter" Johnson spent less while escalating the Vietnam war than Reagan spent during peacetime. Bush and Cheney have similarly wasted lots of money on invading a country that had no WMD or connections to Al-Qaeda, but that's pivotal to controlling the Middle-East's oil supply.

    However, there are striking similarities between the 1920s Republicans and the Reagan-Bush era Republicans in terms of their policies on -domestic- spending. Lack of a welfare state and deregulation have contributed significantly to both the Great Depression and to the present recession.
  10. 19 Jul '09 20:10 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by karnachz
    [b]Not true. FDR was re-elected in a landslide in 1936, by a margin of 60.8% to 36.5% of the popular vote, and 523 to 8 Electoral College votes. This reflects the overwhelming success of the New Deal during his first term. Economic measures including GDP and unemployment rates also show that the economy was clearly recovering.
    Roosevel carried all but 2 states against his Republican challenger, Alf Landon. This amazing result is often emphasized by historians. What is less well known is the fact that in early 1936 Roosevelt was behind in the Gallup polls and even trailed in his private polls. In Februrary 1936, Emil Hurja, Roosevelt's personal pollster, concluded that if nominated Landon could beat Roosevelt were the election held that month. High unemployment was plaguing the president and the Supreme Court had recently struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the National Recovery Administration, two linchpins of the New Deal. Also, the Republicans had recently captured two congreassional seats in open elections in Rhode Island and Michigan. In addition, the New York state legislature--where Roosevelt began his political career--had just swung over to the Republicans. This should not be suprising--the New Deal had not ended the Depression and voters were responding accordingly.

    However, in 1936 the president developed a strategy that swamped the Republicans. It can be described in 3 words: subsidies for votes. He would spend record amounts of tax dollars on programs that would give people a vested interest in voting for his re-election. Gary Dean Best, in his excellent book Pride, Prejudice, and Politics, outlines Roosevelt's tactic of blitzing key election districts with federal funds.
    For example, he met with Henry Wallace, the agricultural secretary, and gae the following order, "Henry, through July, August, Septemeber, October and up to the 5th of November I want cotton to sell at 12 cents a pound. I do not care how you do it. That is your problem. It can't go below 12 cents".

    When the WPA had spent all its money, and was faced with throwing people out of work on October 1, Roosevelt ordered Henry Morgenthau not to let anyone b e laid off. As Morgenthau recalled Roosevelt's words, "he does not give a damn where they get the money". With a Gallup poll showing relief workers going 5-1 for Roosevelt over Landon, the president had strong incentives to transfer as much wealth as possible from the private to the public sector.

    Landon and fellow Repulicans all over the country were perplexed over how to combat the "subsides for votes" strategy. If they attacked Roosevelt's programs, he would ask what they would do differenty. If they said, "End programs", then the many Americans who were becoming addicted to the programs would protest and call the Republicans heartless, uncaring, and selfish. If Landon said he would continue the programs in different ways, then why should they switch over to his side? With Roosevelt they had government jobs. Why take chances with the Republicans? The subsidy-for-votes strategy helps explain the paradox of how the New Deal could be such an economic calamity for the nation and such a politcal triumph for Roosevelt.

    With the dramatic rise in government spending on public works, farm subsides, and various relief programs, the top income tax rate skyrocketed from 24% in 1929 to 79% in 1935. In 1941 FDR even proposed raising the top rate to 99.5% on all income over $100,000. Not suprisingly, entrepreneours were stifled and refused to invest and have their capital confiscated. Unemployment under the New Deal never dropped below 14% and averaged over 17%.

    As the Great Depression persisted, even Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau admitted that the New Deal had been a failure. On May 6, 1939, he confessed, "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.....We have never made good on our promises...I say after 8 years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started....And an enormous debt to boot!".

    http://fee.org/nff/three-myths-of-the-great-depression/

    In regards to Obama, it appears he is repeating history in that unemployment has gravitated to 10% even though he declared it would not go over 8%. In addition, many of his proposals target small businesses such as the new cap and trade and universal health care programs. Unfortunately, small business accounts for 2/3 of the new jobs every year so what do you suppose the unemployment rates will go to if they are inacted?.
  11. 19 Jul '09 20:52
    Originally posted by whodey
    Roosevel carried all but 2 states against his Republican challenger, Alf Landon. This amazing result is often emphasized by historians. What is less well known is the fact that in early 1936 Roosevelt was behind in the Gallup polls and even trailed in his private polls. In Februrary 1936, Emil Hurja, Roosevelt's personal pollster, concluded that if nominat ...[text shortened]... ar so what do you suppose the unemployment rates will go to if they are inacted?.
    As much as I would like to learn more about the Great Depression, some ultra-biased source isn't going to cut it.
  12. 19 Jul '09 21:14 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    As much as I would like to learn more about the Great Depression, some ultra-biased source isn't going to cut it.
    Address the data, not the bias which everyone clearly has including yourself. The only question then becomes, are we afraid to revisit previous beliefs we have already made up our minds about?
  13. 19 Jul '09 21:18
    Originally posted by whodey
    Address the data, not the bias which everyone clearly has including yourself. The only question then becomes, are we afraid to revisit previous beliefs we have already made up our minds about?
    What data?
  14. 19 Jul '09 21:36
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What data?
    The fact that unemployment was rising and even people within the Roosevelt administration viewed the New Deal as a failure. In addition, the fact that at the beginning of the year when the election was to be held the populace concenus was that they wanted FDR out of there.
  15. 19 Jul '09 21:47
    Originally posted by whodey
    The fact that unemployment was rising and even people within the Roosevelt administration viewed the New Deal as a failure. In addition, the fact that at the beginning of the year when the election was to be held the populace concenus was that they wanted FDR out of there.
    What is the source of the data?