FDR and the great depression

[SmilezRoyale]

Discuss, defend, and criticize whether or not FDR [Franklin Delano Roosevelt] Alleviated or prolonged the economic effects of the depression.

Unless psychology is a part of fiscal change, points made in FDR's psychological alleviation [or prolonging] of the depression are irrelevant.

And if this turns into a debate about socialism, communism, and capitalism....

i KEEL you.

[SmilezRoyale]

Sorry for the double post...

But my history textbook makes the following quotation;

"In 1929 the world plunged into an economic depression that was so long lasting, so severe, and so global that it had become known as the great depression. The old capitalist system of trade and finance had effectively collapsed, and until a new system tookit's place after 1945, a return to worldwide prosperity did not occur."

The text insinuates that global prosperity did not occur until the arrival of a new system, what is that system called? [It doesn't say, i read the text, the 'new system' is nameless]

Can you name it? can you identify it?

[therealsylvos]

It really is not something to discuss in one post.
I have forever been trying to get people to read "The Roosevelt Myth" by John T. Flynn.

It is incredibly detailed and very interesting.
And is about 400 pages, so if you truly want to find out, read it.

[fahrenheit]

I don't know about the world, but the US didn't truly come out of the depression until WWII.

Did FDR prolong the depression? I don't think he did.
I don't think there was much anyone could do in that position to get us fully out of the depression, but he certainly helped.

[therealsylvos]

If you don't want to take my word for it,
take the word of UCLA economists.

[SmilezRoyale]

Why don't you and Fahrenheit debate about it. [I'm staying out of this because i have other things to do, I'll be back in maybe 20 minutes]

[Slizor]

At 3/16/08 08:39 PM, therealsylvos wrote: If you don't want to take my word for it,
take the word of UCLA economists.

I'd prefer not to. See, I prefer to think about things on my own and don't just give in to the opinions of "authorities" on subjects. It's fine pointing to analysis supporting your view, but claiming that it makes you correct is a whole other matter. I mean, there are no doubt countless economists who disagree with the analysis of the two you have pointed out, how are we then to decide who is correct?

[therealsylvos]

At 3/16/08 09:33 PM, Slizor wrote:
I'd prefer not to. See, I prefer to think about things on my own and don't just give in to the opinions of "authorities" on subjects. It's fine pointing to analysis supporting your view, but claiming that it makes you correct is a whole other matter. I mean, there are no doubt countless economists who disagree with the analysis of the two you have pointed out, how are we then to decide who is correct?

That is a fair point.
However the article does not just say "we are economists listen to us."
They cite facts and figures, along with well grounded economic thought.
If you have a specific problem with that, then by all means bring it to the fore.

[ItBeShannonFoo]

The text insinuates that global prosperity did not occur until the arrival of a new system, what is that system called? [It doesn't say, i read the text, the 'new system' is nameless]

Can you name it? can you identify it?

Who is the author of your text book [ outof curiousity] mine is brinkley.

and isn't it "The New Deal"

[qStik]

I don't know why you're talking about the last depression when you have a new one on the way...

[SmilezRoyale]

At 3/17/08 07:06 PM, qStik wrote: I don't know why you're talking about the last depression when you have a new one on the way...

That's a lousy reason to not discuss this imo

"The best predictor of future behavior is past behaviour." - A southern hick who makes millions on a drama show but has very good 'sayings' which probably came from his vastly more intelligent parents.

[ItBeShannonFoo]

WWII saved Americas ecnonomy.

[iiREDii]

At 3/17/08 10:07 PM, ItBeShannonFoo wrote: WWII saved Americas ecnonomy.

historical fallacy 101

[iiREDii]

At 3/16/08 09:43 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 3/16/08 09:33 PM, Slizor wrote:
I'd prefer not to. See, I prefer to think about things on my own and don't just give in to the opinions of "authorities" on subjects. It's fine pointing to analysis supporting your view, but claiming that it makes you correct is a whole other matter. I mean, there are no doubt countless economists who disagree with the analysis of the two you have pointed out, how are we then to decide who is correct?

That is a fair point.
However the article does not just say "we are economists listen to us."
They cite facts and figures, along with well grounded economic thought.
If you have a specific problem with that, then by all means bring it to the fore.

I would advise you both to check out Mises.org on the subject.

FDR prolonged the depression. Period. (which I might add was caused by monopolistic control and manipulation of the money supply and interests rates through the FED.)

[BigAbboTT]

http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documen ts/1930s/EmergBank_1933.html

Prolonged.

[SolInvictus]

i'm extremely confused on this issue. economics courses are still teaching that mass public works and other attempts to stimulate the economy alleviate the problem, but, from what i understood, that is what was done yet it supposedly prolonged the depression.

[TheMason]

At 3/17/08 07:06 PM, qStik wrote: I don't know why you're talking about the last depression when you have a new one on the way...

Actually, that's the BEST reason to be discussing this...

[TheMason]

At 3/16/08 10:15 PM, ItBeShannonFoo wrote:

The text insinuates that global prosperity did not occur until the arrival of a new system, what is that system called? [It doesn't say, i read the text, the 'new system' is nameless]

Can you name it? can you identify it?

Who is the author of your text book [ outof curiousity] mine is brinkley.

and isn't it "The New Deal"

No, the New Deal is the name of FDR's policies that instituted the new system. However, the name of the new system is Keynesian Economics. This is a mixed system which increased the importance of the state's role in the economy. This was a change from Laissez-faire economics (a form of economic liberalism) where the role of the private sector was seen much more effective and important than the state's.

Also to avoid confusion, when I talk about liberal economics I am not using 'liberal' in the way that Fox news refers to Clinton and Obama. Rather I am using it in the classical liberal context. This is referred to as little 'l' liberalism because the proper grammatical spelling is with a lower case letter. On the other hand, in the context of American political ideology Liberal is capitalizied so when used in relation to a US Democratic or other non-socialist Leftist, it is called big 'L' Liberalism.

I could expand and include a discussion of classical conservatism and classical socialism (only contained in the first sections after the introduction). But I don't want the topic starter to "keel" me. I don't know what it means to "keel" someone...but it doesn't sound pleasant!

(On a side note, I think NG needs to add a professor smiley!)

[ItBeShannonFoo]

At 3/17/08 10:42 PM, iiREDii wrote:

At 3/17/08 10:07 PM, ItBeShannonFoo wrote: WWII saved Americas ecnonomy.

historical fallacy 101

How so?

[JediMaster-pimp]

FDR deffinatley had a big effect on fixing the economy in the 30's. He fixed bank problems, he stimulated the economy with public works projects. He deffinately made positive changed in big bussiness and the movment of money throughout the country. FDR was the man.

[TheMason]

At 3/21/08 02:35 AM, JediMaster-pimp wrote: FDR deffinatley had a big effect on fixing the economy in the 30's. He fixed bank problems, he stimulated the economy with public works projects. He deffinately made positive changed in big bussiness and the movment of money throughout the country. FDR was the man.

What is funny about this is FDR's hypocracy and basically lying during the campaign against Hoover in 1932. Hoover had increased the tax burden of the rich from around 25% to 63% as well as creating other taxes such as taxes on bank checks. While he tried a volunteeristic approach to the dealing with the recession, he switched to ideas such as federal funding of projects etc as an economic stimulus.

FDR blasted Hoover for his recklessness, greedy taxation and for moving the country down the path to socialism. He said moving in this direction was the wrong way. Then, once he was in office he took Hoover's plans and beefed them up taking the country further down the path that Hoover created than Hoover himself would have taken the country.

FDR also straddled modern America with the massive screw job called Social Security.

FDR was a great leader...but not "the man". He was no Washington, Jefferson or Lincoln.