Damon W. Root, writing for Reason, reviews two books on Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal and race policies:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt ranks near or at the very top of almost every standard list of America’s greatest presidents. But there is a substantial part of the American public for whom the legendary four-termer did little: African Americans. Despite the determined efforts of his do-gooder wife Eleanor, for example, he failed to support federal anti-lynching legislation and refused to integrate the armed forces. (Successor Harry Truman finally did the latter in 1948.) Although supposedly sympathetic to the plight of black America, FDR was not about to risk losing either his New Deal or World War II by alienating Southern supporters or moving too far ahead of public opinion.Two recent books, one generally liberal and the other libertarian, offer interesting and divergent viewpoints on what Roosevelt and his New Deal did, and did not do, to improve life for American blacks. In Reconsidering Roosevelt on Race: How the Presidency Paved the Road to Brown, Kevin J. McMahon credits the New Deal with establishing a judiciary “eager to defer” to the executive branch’s authority and expertise, allowing the Justice Department to “instruct” the courts on civil rights cases. In FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Depression, Jim Powell argues that New Deal economic and regulatory policies were bad for many Americans, especially poor blacks.
Both books offer original and persuasive arguments and engage each other in a number of challenging ways. Ultimately, Powell’s case is both more convincing and damning. His evidence reveals that the New Deal threw African Americans out of work, raised the price of food during the depths of the Depression, and granted monopoly bargaining powers to racist unions. In short, Powell writes, “Black people were among the major victims of the New Deal.” Such a conclusion doesn’t merely reveal FDR’s often indifferent attitude toward minorities — in passing wartime travel restrictions and internment rules on Italian Americans, for instance, he derided them as “a bunch of opera singers” — it suggests that a thorough, fact-based re-evaluation of FDR’s mythic status as a champion of the underdog is long overdue.
Of more interest to me is the second book, which I may read. I like the book’s provocative title and its thesis: The New Deal was a raw deal, especially for blacks.
You don’t need a Ph.D. in economics to know that government programs cost money or that the government doesn’t have money of its own. One way or another at some point or another, someone will have to pay for what the government does.
If there are readers out there with expertise (or just opinions) on the New Deal, feel free to add your thoughts. This is an interesting view.
{ 44 comments }
I had been studying about the New Deal and its effects for a long time. In short, yes I believe that the New Deal did a number on all Americans in the long run. I do believe that the people of the US at that time needed some type of assistance to get back on their feet (being that they had to suffer throughout the Great Depression). However, FDR should have had the wisdom and sense to pull back all the government programs under the New Deal once the economy got back on the road to recovery. My guess is that FDR saw the benefits (to him) of increased government involvement in the lives of the people. If you notice, once the New Deal went into effect, the amount of geniuses and inventors in the United States that were American born went down. People who were once used to having their own businesses were now thrusted into a system were they became co-dependent on government entitlements. If the New Deal was gradually pulled at the rate of the recovering economy, people would have retained the mindset of family entrepreneurship. Now, we live in a time where the government is ultimately responsible for job creation.
bum deal indeed!
Now, we live in a time where the government is ultimately responsible for job creation.
You know what’s really sad? That a lot people think it’s the government’s job to create jobs! Business, free enterprise, creates jobs.
Something Joe Louis did in response to the effects of the Great Depression on his family:
My favorite New Deal book is by Garet Garrett – The People’s Pottage. It is an excellent read and easy to find a used copy on e-bay or abebooks.com
The New Deal is an old favourite subject for professors everywhere. Mine is obsessed with it.
I think the assertion it prolonged the depression is insane. This was one slump that wouldnt just go away if left alone. FDR saw the problems were to do with the system, not blaming it on problems overseas as Hoover did. To be honest, books condemning the New Deal arnt a new thing. They validly target in on some of its failings, like the inability to provide relief to every poor person, particuly poor blacks in the USA. A lot of this however can be attributed to businesses refusing to put up with his minimum wage legislation, and thus firing workers who they didnt think deserved the minimum wage. Not New Deal legislation ‘throwing them out of work’ as the book misleadingly says.
These kind of books make good critisisms, but fail to address the SUCCESSES of the New Deal. Most importantly, FDR’s saving of the US banking system…..which was on the brink of total collapse due to Hoover’s avoidance of intervention. Also the Tennesse Valley Authority….which as well as bringing electricity to 2.5 million people, bought thousands of jobs to the area. The WPA, which on average employed 2 million people a year. So, while it easy to critisize the New Deal’s inability to deal with minority issues, its even easier to point out the general overall good done by it. I dread to think what would of happened in regards to the depression if there was another Hoover term!
I grew up as a recipient of the New Deal’s government “aid.” (they called it ADC back then). When I got old enough to work I found out that I really couldn’t until some college intern from Harvard working for the government “showed me how to work.” I told them that I could push a broom with the best of them. I told them I could lift as much as they could. I told them I could push a pencil. I told them that all I wanted was an opportunity. I was even brassy enough to think I was just as intelligent as they were. But it made no difference to them what I felt or thought. I was one of the “less fortunate” and they were determined to take care of me.
Well they took care of me alright. The great lesson I took out of my experience is that big government (the New Deal kind) is nothing more than a way for leftist politicians to soothe their consciences. Their intent is to keep people in perpetual servitude so that the recipients of their nobility will humbly bow before them and keep them in power.
Thank God I got myself out of their clutches.
Thank you, Phil!I like that kind of talk.
I believe the New Deal was an attempt to do ’something’ about the prolonged depression and it’s devastating affects on Americas’ population. I also believe Hoover’s plan was to do nothing and the ‘market’ would fix itself. As I understand, it didn’t.
What would you have done in the same circumstances, La Shawn.
If I were facing starvation and there were literally no jobs to be had? Like any human, I’d take hand-outs to survive. But when has there ever been a time since that people faced starvation because there were literally no jobs to be had? At least in the U.S., such a thing would (probably) never happen again.
‘If I were facing starvation and there were literally no jobs to be had? Like any human, I’d take hand-outs to survive.’
Charity organisations could no way cope with the scale of poverty during the depression. Hoover advocates reliance on charity hand outs. Its a certainly a good principle, it was just no way feasible at the time.
‘At least in the U.S., such a thing would (probably) never happen again. ‘
Which is due, at least in part to New Deal regulating legislation and banking reforms.
It’s really tough to say why the Depression went on as long as it did. Every time FDR tried scaling back his govt programs, nothing improved. And the Depression was a worldwide occurance, not just in the USA (of course, Europe had a very good reason for being devastated from 1917 on). Price and wage controls, though, really did nobody any good, and some of those controls have had lasting effects to this day (for example, health benefits being provided by one’s employer was started during this period, as there were salary caps and employers had to think of a way to compete against each other. For some reason, the IRS ruled this was tax deductible (not true for those paying out of pocket for themselves)… and the rest is history.) Many rules and regulations were definite disincentives for private enterprise.
However, many of the public works projects were good. The CCC took a blighted Appalachia and reforested it and made roads that are still in use today. Many parts of the rural South were electrified (my Grandmother lived in rural Mississippi (isn’t that all of it?) and told me of remembering when electricity came through). Social Security, though the details have not been fixed, was an admirable idea as too many of the elderly were ending up in horrid poorhouses, as very few people had pensions. The tax law that supported pension plans also was founded at this time. The problem is that many of these programs were frozen as they were then, or benefits added, rather than look at the actuarial reality of rising incomes and life expectancies, and adjusting accordingly.
FDR had lots of failings as a President, but most of these are best seen in hindsight. He tried things that people proposed, and kept trying different things as previous ideas didn’t work. Some people were hurt by his plans, but people were also hurt by Hoover’s non-plans. He was President through an extremely difficult time, so I’m willing to be charitable for many of his leadership failings. He’s definitely not my favorite president, but he did accomplish quite a bit.
The thing is about the New Deal – it was an experiment. FDR had nothing to go by, as nothing like this had ever been attempted before in the United States. The New Deal was often chaotic as FDR and his ‘brains trust’ were working from their own initiative, not from past lessons. The same logic can be applied to the Constitution. In hindsight, this document wasnt perfect. But at the time, it was a great new idea that changed things for the better.
IMO, FDR and Woodrow Wilson were bad for the country in alot of ways. Especially with their radical moves towards socialism. Socialism was the new societal/governmental experiment, and it is now failing us dramatically. Democrats still want this socialism, but I think a tide is changing for the better towards capitalism again.
Look at Social Security, for instance. Very bad for elderly people in a lot of ways. The money that we have to put towards SS could go to an IRA and make alot more money. WHen someone dies, the SS is not passed on to the children. Why work?
Omar has taken the discussion way beyond the point of reasonability. For someone to say there wern’t enough resources in the free market to take care of things is absurd. For someone to say that only the government could fix the problem is even more absurd.
For example, I just completed a 44 year professional career. I’ll be collecting social security Jan 2005. In my forty years I put in far, far more than I am ever going to get out of the program. Of my 44 years, I spent 16 with FedEx. My vested retirement benefit after 16 years is twice what I’ll be getting from Social Security. Further I invested in our 401K, which re-invested my deposits into the market. I did this for 10 years. It has gone through good times and bad (post 9/11). I invested the same amount that was withdrwn from my check by the government for social security. I did a spreadsheet comparing my social security benefit to the 401K. I assumed that I would live till I’m 78. At age 78, I would still be getting the same benefit ($1200 per month) from social security. During that same period I would be able to withdraw $3,000 per month from my 401K and with the miracle of interest (assuming a 30 year stock market average) I would have more raw $ in my 401K than when I retired.
I did it the honest way – no Whitewater sweet deals. No overnight millions on options I knew nothing about. I just worked with Vanguard and they worked with me.
Why does it work that way? The free market isn’t loaded with bureaucrats and polticians dipping their fingers into what is rightfully mine.
There are three huge problems with the New Deal. First, it really doesn’t do all that the politicians say it does. Second, free markets can do better than the a centralized government bureaucracy any day. And third, the New Deal created two symbiotic classes – the “nobles” (bureaucrats) and the serfs (the perpetually dependent).
Read F.A. Hayek (”The Road to Serfdom” or his other classic on socialism “The Fatal Conceit”) and you’ll see that what I’m saying is true.
‘Especially with their radical moves towards socialism. ‘
FDR never went as far as to develop a socialist state, although given his powers he COULD have done this. Roosevelt was no socialist. Infact, id even go as far to say he saved US capitalism.
‘Omar has taken the discussion way beyond the point of reasonability. For someone to say there wern’t enough resources in the free market to take care of things is absurd. For someone to say that only the government could fix the problem is even more absurd.’
Its not absurd, and the success of the New Deal proves this. Simply letting the economy ‘run its course,’ like Hoover did simply WASNT an option. Things werent getting better, and the only way to make them better was government intervention. I dont see how anybody can deny this. The US was a total mess. Banks were a mess, the stock market was a mess, industry was a mess…..and it wasnt going to magically go away, despite what the staunch laissez faire capitalists thought.
Phil, well done on your sound business sense. But i dont see how this discredits the accomplishments made by the New Deal.
‘There are three huge problems with the New Deal. First, it really doesn’t do all that the politicians say it does.’
The New Deal created literally millions on jobs, saved the disintegrating US banking system, helped some of the poorest people in America (TVA, rural electrification administration), established some set in stone rights for the workers i.e collective bargaining, minimum wage etc etc
and last but not least established the governments responsibility to its citizens. But sure, it didnt do a lot.
‘Second, free markets can do better than the a centralized government bureaucracy any day. ‘
Sure they can. Just look at the progress made by free markets to get out of the depression under Hoover’s presidency……oh wait….there wasnt any.
‘And third, the New Deal created two symbiotic classes – the “nobles” (bureaucrats) and the serfs (the perpetually dependent).’
What do you think existed BEFORE the New Deal? distribution of wealth was even worse, making for an even bigger gap between ‘nobles’ and ’serfs,’ as you call them.
‘Read F.A. Hayek (”The Road to Serfdom” or his other classic on socialism “The Fatal Conceit”) and you’ll see that what I’m saying is true. ‘
Doubtful, as i consider myself to be an independent socialist.
Omar
I’m a free market capitalist, but I’ve read Karl Marx. Are you afraid that you might learn something?
You really don’t get the point. I think it’s because you’re “straining out gnats and swallowing camels.” The fact is that the New Deal created a perpetually dependent class. It’s basic assumption is that that the really noble among us are better prepared to make decisions for others.
I know what it’s like to live as a dependent of the system. I spent my first 18 years of life living within the welfare system. It isa way of life that’s abhorent to everything a man should be.
Free markets work. Capitalism works. Socialism never does. The reason it doesn’t is because it draws the assumption that some vanguard is going to save us all from ourselves. Read Bill Taubman’s biography of Kruschev and you might get the point. Nikita was a pipe fitter by trade. He made his way up through the communist bureaucracry by heading agricultural departments. The five year plan thing. Of course Nikita knew nothing about agriculture. So in order to keep his head on and keep himself protected from Uncle Joe’s purges he developed a massive bureaucracy. There was the ministry of the beet. There was the ministry of winter wheat. etc, etc, etc…Nikita was shrewd. Any time Stalin demanded to know why the five year plan wasn’t working he had someone to blame. One time it could have been the minister of the beet’s fault. Another it could have been the minister of winter wheat….etc, etc, etc…..To the tune of miliions and millions of murders, the gulags with their slave labor. But I guess the Soviet people should have been happy. They had “free” health care. They had a mighty military machine.
The New Deal, unchecked, was the road to socialism. That’s something the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans don’t want. Why? I’ll close with this from Hayek if you’re willing to open your mind:
“There can be no doubt that the promise of greater freedom has become one of the most effective weapons of socialist propaganda and the belief that socialism would bring freedom is genuine and sincere. But this would only heighten the tragedy if it should prove that what was promised to us as the Road to Freedom was in fact the High Road to Servitude.” He then cites an American correspondent named W.H. Chamberlain who had been quite enamored with socialism. After twelve years in Russia Cahmberlain had “all his ideals shattered, summed up the conclusions of his studies there and in Germany and Italy in the statement that ’socialism is certain to prove, in the beginning at least, the road NOT TO freedom, but to dictatorship and counter-dictatorships, to civil war of the fiercest kind.’”
FDR perfected the system of the Welfare/Warfare state begun by Wilson. Before this time, the economic system of our society was the one set up by Lincoln and his immediate successors and the Northeastern mercantilists: a state-endorsed psuedo-capitalism; not truly free-market, but much more unfettered than what we have now (think of the tycoons of this era).
Roosevelt and his advisors had no intention of his New Deal to be temporary or Ad Hoc. They knew what they were doing.
If you honestly believe that the Founding Fathers’ ideal of limited and narrowly defined government was flawed; or, unsuitable for today’s world, then Roosevelt justly should be your hero. But do not pretend that the two systems are at all compatible.
Oh, and the New Deal didn’t get us out of any depression. For that we can thank Hitler and the Tojos.
Meep/Phil, good points all. The only thing I would add is the effect of isolationist policies. the free market was hamstrung by these rules and intervention only made it worse. If it wasn’t for the rapid advances in industry, the economy would have tanked absolutely, intervention or no intervention.
Hoover had no frame of reference and didn’t realize that a free market could not thrive under trade protectionism. Had the barriers been dropped, the economy would have picked it self in due course.
FDR had no frame of reference and believed it was the government’s job to intervene, not realizing that a free market needed space to optimize itself. So he spent (deficit) our way out of the depression and fortunately for him, industry was able to provide the juice to get us over the hump.
Without industry, FDR would have failed miserably. Without FDR, barriers and intervention, industry would have suceeded well enough. But as with today’s leftist attitudes, personal and corporate industry is dismissed and government redistribution praised.
I’ll say it again, I think the pendulum is swinging back and ever more people will realize that only they can help themselves while Uncle Sam should concern itself with the founding principles. IOW, back to the time-tested basics.
Sorry to disappoint you folks, but most of the damage of the great depression was committed by President Hoover. FDR merely carried on his bad work, Both were interventionist– progressives.
Hoover was Secretary of Commerce under President Taft when the 1921 banking panic hit which washed out the debts of World War one. Hoover had itched to intervene, but before he got President Taft to act 9 months passed and the panic was over. Under Hoover’s term, Benjamin Strong of the NY Federal Reserve System loaned to Britain $50 billion dollars to prop up the Pound Sterling which was about the same amount that was washed out in 1921 panic.
Hoover has this weird idea that high wages, not purchasing power or standard of living, was the sign of a healthy economy, so he made factory owners cut their employee’s hours a day from 12 to 8. This increase in pay caused major layoffs. The Federal Reserve also pulled back on liquidity which caused a third of the banks to fold by 1933; this in turn produced a rash of foreclosures. FDR did many stupid things but nothing compared to Hoover. See Paul Johnson’s book, “Modern Times.”
Omar said, “FDR never went as far as to develop a socialist state, although given his powers he COULD have done this. Roosevelt was no socialist. Infact, id even go as far to say he saved US capitalism.”
How did he do this? By helping to create a socialist state that may be our downfall if left unchecked and unfettered? I keep on hearing about our huge federal debt and deficit. You do realize that this debt and deficit is a result of FDR’s policies and legacies?
“Doubtful, as i consider myself to be an independent socialist.”
“Economy” is the opposite of theft & plunder. You can’t base an “economy” on looting; that’s why socialism fails.
If a women who had breast cancer had a breast removed to save her life, then 30 years later a cure for breast cancer is found, it would be wrong to criticize the procedure, in retrospect, based upon the new discoveries of the future. The women is minus a breast, but her life was saved. Roosevelt saved the economic life of the nation, although it may have cost the nation a breast. Often times cures and treatments that keep you alive come with side effects.
In regards to what he did for Blacks, one has to consider the times and the nature of politics. This is a representative form of democracy where politicians must represent the plurality of their constituents if they want to remain in power. This nation was much more overtly racist at that point in time and objected to policies that were seen to be helping or favoring blacks. This was the will of the people (whites), not necessarily the will of politicians who are put in office to serve and represent the majority of people.
I like the breast cancer analogy, Nya. Still, it’s the nature of humans to complain, so even if a better breast cancer treatment is found (though some argue now against total mastectomies) 100 years from now, people will dissect, examine and write whole treatises harshly critical of the way it’s done now.
We rightly complain about the once-common and barbaric practice of bleeding people, for example. I can’t imagine why anyone would think draining the life out of people would “cure” them. Fascinating stuff.
Wow, Nya. The power of analogy.
FDR was a politician first, the art of knowing what’s possible. You have to be to keep your office in order to do the things you feel need doing. I’ll bet Eleanor was the big influence for the New Deal, as well as helping with other social ills, such as racism. She wasn’t pleased he wouldn’t do more in the social areas.
I understand she was so surprised and touched though by the outpouring of grief and respect that was shown by the large mulitude of American people as they lined the tracks to view the train that carried his casket home.
‘I’m a free market capitalist, but I’ve read Karl Marx. Are you afraid that you might learn something?’
You claimed this book would change my mind. I said i doubt it. Did any of the Karl Marx books you read turn you into a commie?
‘It’s basic assumption is that that the really noble among us are better prepared to make decisions for others.’
This is flawed, as in laissez faire capitalism, the assumption is corporate big wigs among us are better prepared to make decisions for others.
‘Free markets work. Capitalism works. Socialism never does.’
Incorrect, and unsupported assumption. Socialism is a very workable, organised system. Unregulated free markets are what triggered the stock market crash, and flaws in the unregulated economy are what lead to the Great Depression.
‘Any time Stalin demanded to know why the five year plan wasn’t working he had someone to blame.’
Are you seriously suggesting the whole point of bureaucracy is so blame can be shifted easily? Thats totally irrationaL, ignoring the fact there are always others to blame. For example, Hoover blamed the ‘dislocation of the world economy’ for the Great Depression in his memoirs. He either conscientiously lied to try and save his own face, or truly didnt realise that the unregulated juggernaut that was the US economy was a time bomb waiting to plunge the US into depression.
‘The New Deal, unchecked, was the road to socialism. That’s something the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans don’t want.’
I dont agree. FDR was not a socialist, and the US was never close to becoming a socialist state. FDR and his brains trust were influenced by Keynesian economics, which werent socialist. Keynes merely advocated major government intervention at times of economic crisis. a If anything, FDR saved US capitalism. Ironically, i think you should be thanking him instead of condemning him.
‘I’ll close with this from Hayek if you’re willing to open your mind:’
This is a pretty bold statement coming from a guy who claims ’socialism never works.’ Anywho…..
I find it crazy how you manage to condemn FDR for implementing ’socialist’ policies, and ignore/disregard all the GOOD things done by the New Deal. This is extremely dishonest. Because of your right wing conservative beliefs, you refuse to acknowledge FDR’s saving of the USA because you falsely believe the New Deal was a socialist program.
I’ll end with a couple of quotes from Keynes, if you are willing to open your mind:
‘Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.’
^This sums up pre New Deal capitalismn perfectly.
‘I do not know which makes a man more conservative – to know nothing but the present, or nothing but the past. ‘
Omar, just 3 points.
FDR would have done better by lifting trade barriers. By maintaining the protectionist status quo while implementing interventionist policies, he was betting on a recovery before going broke. That’s a rather iffy bet, especially if there was no war.
A loss of freemarket faith in a protectionist regime is what triggered the stock market crash. The maintenance of a protectionist regime is what led to the great Depression. What good is a freemarket (regulated or not), if there is no free trade? In the Soviet era, Russians were free to buy anything they wanted at the marketplace. Unfortunately, there wasn’t much of anything to buy, hence the long bread lines, in spite of massive wheat importations.
Keynes’ economic theories are pro-interventionist and therefore useless in the framework of free trade. Name one sustainable very workable, organised system.
As usual, you have everything backwards in trying to push your strings, rather than pulling them. Given what we know of human nature, our system isn’t perfect, nevertheless it is the best thing going. It makes no sense whatsoever to adopt failed ideology in the ongoing quest to improve our system.
I don’t know what makes a man more liberal – to nothing nothing but the present ideology, or nothing but the past ideology.
‘FDR would have done better by lifting trade barriers.’
I agree with you. The New Deal wasnt perfect. I never suggested it was, i just find it dishonest when people ignore the good done by the New Deal because they arnt willing to support left wing policies.
‘A loss of freemarket faith in a protectionist regime is what triggered the stock market crash.’
It was actually triggered by unrealistically high prices of stock, low interest rates, and unregulated banking, so people bought shares with loaned money. Economists warned it would happen, but the US government refused to intervene.
‘Keynes’ economic theories are pro-interventionist and therefore useless in the framework of free trade.’
Free trade can still be maintained.
‘Name one sustainable very workable, organised system.’
Every government is a bureacracy, to a certain extent. Even the most laissez faire of governments.
‘As usual, you have everything backwards in trying to push your strings, rather than pulling them. ‘
As usual, you throw critisisms around that have no meaning or substance. You fail to see the point of any of my posts.
‘ It makes no sense whatsoever to adopt failed ideology in the ongoing quest to improve our system. ‘
This isnt an argument about socialistm, its the New Deal. I think you are wrong, but stay on topic. Prior to the US, the system of a Republic was a failed one. And it failed many times again too. Socialism is not a failed ideology.
‘I don’t know what makes a man more liberal – to nothing nothing but the present ideology, or nothing but the past ideology.’
Try looking up the definition of ‘conservative.’ Change is key with ‘liberal’ thinking (wide definition) Socialism is a constantly changing beast, just like Marxism and virtually every other ideology.
“I never suggested it was, i just find it dishonest when people ignore the good done by the New Deal because they arnt willing to support left wing policies.”
It’s not that we ignore the illusionary ‘good’, we dislike the unprecdented paternalism. We maintain that we could have recovered without it. Why subject ourselves to growing in spite of trade barriers, when we can grow much more without it.
“It was actually triggered by unrealistically high prices of stock, low interest rates, and unregulated banking, so people bought shares with loaned money. Economists warned it would happen, but the US government refused to intervene.”
The driver in everything you mentioned by the absolute failure in protectionist policies and a lack of faith in the adminstration’s determination to hold the course. People voted with their pocketbook. The precursors are identical to the dot.com boom & bust–unrealistic expectations and the greed to get in front of the wave. Because of the overall strength in our economy, we got a recession instead of a depression. Back then, industry was paramount, today, IT is but one leg.
“Free trade can still be maintained.”
Yes, in theory. In reality, it was slowly bled by protectionist leeches. The top 10 Euro economies provide ample evidence of that folly.
“Every government is a bureacracy, to a certain extent. Even the most laissez faire of governments.”
That’s why I said of all the systems out there, ours is the best thing going.
“As usual, you throw critisisms around that have no meaning or substance. You fail to see the point of any of my posts.”
The point of your post is that nationalized industry is sustainable. Sounds good in theory, utterly impossible in reality.
“This isnt an argument about socialistm, its the New Deal. I think you are wrong, but stay on topic. Prior to the US, the system of a Republic was a failed one. And it failed many times again too. Socialism is not a failed ideology.”
I’m on topic, New Deal=Socialism. The Bread Lines and the Euro-10 provide ample case studies of how NOT to do it. Our Republic plus self-determination system. Proof is that in less than 200 years, we went from nothing to superpower.
“Try looking up the definition of ‘conservative.’ Change is key with ‘liberal’ thinking (wide definition) Socialism is a constantly changing beast, just like Marxism and virtually every other ideology.”
Change for the sake of change is idiotic. Capitalism is constantly evolving, unlike Marxism and virtually every other ideology that devolves towards subjugating man’s initiative and laying claim to the fruits of his labor. Pooling funds (taxation) for common defense/good is natural. Taking our hard-earned monies and redistributing it, is taxation w/o representation. With flawed logic like that, why work when I can mooch? Eventually everyone mooches, then what?
Bottomline, governments are incapable of giving anything, let alone money, they can only take. I support a system that takes less, rather than more and if inclined, might give some of it back. This is the principle that tax & spenders fail to understand–’vote for me, I’ll give you more’.
I am perfectly capable of deciding who or what needs my charity. I don’t need, nor want you, heinz-sKerry, cHillary or anyone else telling me otherwise.
Correction:
“The driver in everything you mentioned by the absolute failure in protectionist…” should have read
“The driver behind everything you mentioned was the absolute failure of protectionist…”
‘It’s not that we ignore the illusionary ‘good’, we dislike the unprecdented paternalism. We maintain that we could have recovered without it.’
Illusionary? The New Deal saved US banking, created millions of jobs and guaranteed worker rights. I see no illusion here. Why do you maintain you could of recovered without it? How do you think this would of happened? Magic?
‘Yes, in theory. In reality, it was slowly bled by protectionist leeches. The top 10 Euro economies provide ample evidence of that folly.’
Folly? Dont be so patronising. For one there isnt a socialist country in Europe, and let me tell you….the EU in general is making economic strides.
‘That’s why I said of all the systems out there, ours is the best thing going.’
As a Socialist, i disagree. The US system is good in areas, and bad in other. The insanely uneven distribution of wealth over here is an effect of neo liberalism, and extreme free markets.
‘The point of your post is that nationalized industry is sustainable. ‘
It is both sustainable and logical. I know who id rather trust out of a centralised government providing for EVERYONE or a bunch of independent, profit hungry big wigs.
‘Change for the sake of change is idiotic.’
I agree, but very often things NEED to be changed, in a lot of areas. As Jefferson once said…”A little revolution, now and then, is a healthy thing. It is as natural as lightning.”
‘Capitalism is constantly evolving, unlike Marxism and virtually every other ideology that devolves towards subjugating man’s initiative and laying claim to the fruits of his labor.’
Marxism is actually constantly evolving. Your claim is a downright lie, as there have been Marxists evolving Marx and Engel’s work since the early 1900’s, right up till now. Ironically, what you claim of Marxism is actually true of Capitalism.
‘Pooling funds (taxation) for common defense/good is natural.’
Can you explain how this is anymore natural than providing much needed resources to people who struggle, instead of letting them sink deeper and deeper as the rich get richer? Pooling money for wars with nothing to do with common defense is irrational.
‘Bottomline, governments are incapable of giving anything, let alone money’
Yeah. Welfare for the needy, free healthcare and what not is all a big lie. Governments are incapable of giving anything. Please…..Look at the reality.
‘I am perfectly capable of deciding who or what needs my charity.’
In which case, nothing would get done as Capitalism naturally spawns greed and envy between individuals. Voluntarily charity groups like the Salvation army REALLY coped well with the poverty during the depression didnt they? Give me a break. Thinking volunantary charity works is just naive. Ahhh well, im sure you’d rather let your tax dollars go to Israel’s defense, and the war in Iraq, right?
‘I don’t need, nor want you, heinz-sKerry, cHillary or anyone else telling me otherwise.’
Just like i dont need you preaching amateur opinions on which ideologies work and dont work.
Omar
I certainly didn’t say that you WOULD learn something if you read Hayek. I said you MIGHT learn something. It was based on the assumption that one CAN learn through reading. But I do understand that’s not a ironclad law.
RE: the socialist beaurocracy. I’m far from deluded, Omar. There is a historical track record that bears me out. Millions murdered. Political opponents sent to the gulags. Again, read Taubman’s biography of Kruschev.
Please remember that Hoover didn’t assign people to gulags or murder millions of his political opponents either.
Thanks for the epithet. It really helps to further coherent discussion.
I have read Lord Keynes and know a bit about liquidity preference and aggregate demand.
Again, I go back to Hayek, or Milton Freidman if you prefer. Also, if you’re interested in third world economics read Peruvian economist Hernando DeSoto’s “The Mystery of Capital.”
And, yes the OVERWHELMING majority of us here in America do not want a socialist state. Why? wasn’t it lenin who said, “Who, whom?” By that he meant, as Hayek noted, “Sumemd up the universal problem of a socialist society. Who plans whom, who directs and dominates whom, and who assigns to other people their station in life, and who is to have his due allocated by others? These become necessarily the central issues decided solely by the supreme power.”
I have no doubt whatsover of what would happen to us if you were the “supreme power” or, for that matter, Director of the ministry of the beet or winter wheat. Our fate here in Kansas would be no better than the Kulaks of Stalin’s time.
I did reply to Andy, but it seems my post was deemed inapproriate or something. I dont know why.
‘Millions murdered. Political opponents sent to the gulags. Again, read Taubman’s biography of Kruschev.’
In regards to this sentence, its similiar to me comparing modern day US capitalism with Nazism. Contrary to popular belief, you can be a Socialist without being a Communist. Purges committed by Stalin, while being exaggerated by the media in the West….had nothing to do with the ethos of socialism OR communism. Oppression isnt a goal of any regime per se, it is rather a means.
‘Please remember that Hoover didn’t assign people to gulags or murder millions of his political opponents either.’
When did i say he did? Ignoring the fact Krushchev’s revisionist government was radically different to Stalin’s, this is a shoddy defense of Hoover. Because he didnt kill millions of his own people, this doesnt make him a good man or a good President.
‘Again, I go back to Hayek, or Milton Freidman if you prefer.’
Friedman would be a starting point, but even he admitted Keynes was a brilliant economist, and influenced him. At the end of the day, Keynesian economics helped pull the US out the depression. Friedman was stuck in monetarist polcies that could never cope with the Great Depression.
‘And, yes the OVERWHELMING majority of us here in America do not want a socialist state. ‘
I agree. I didnt say i wanted to force Socialism on America, i was merely outlining my personal political/economic opinion. The thing is, people in a lot of places have wanted Socialism and had their efforts interfered with by the US, or other Western nations, including my own Great Britain. Note Chile, Nicaragua, (Indeed Latin America in general) Vietnam, China etc etc…
Throughout history, what the ‘majority’ of people want is often ignored. Heres a nice sound bite from Henry Kissinger, addressing majority thinking in Chile:
“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people.” – About Chile prior to the CIA overthrow of the popularly elected government of Salvadore Allende.
“Sumemd up the universal problem of a socialist society. Who plans whom, who directs and dominates whom, and who assigns to other people their station in life, and who is to have his due allocated by others? These become necessarily the central issues decided solely by the supreme power.”
This actually ISNT what Lenin meant. By this, he was refering to WHO is the oppressor, WHOM is the oppressed. Hayek fails to judge what he said correctly, instead assuming this so he can critisize Socialism. Its important to note Lenin never spoke English. Hayek judges Socialism correct, to an extent. Instead of REAL power lying in the hands of unelected big wigs, who can quite often influence the real ‘government’ it lies in the hands of a centralized power, working for the good of everyone. This is pretty basic ethos here, but anyway….Hayek misjudged Lenin.
‘Our fate here in Kansas would be no better than the Kulaks of Stalin’s time. ‘
This is blatant scare mongering. Do you know what a ‘Kulak’ is? This is besides the point anyway. The majority of Socialists, and indeed Marxists are in direct opposition to Stalins autocratic dictatorship. If you’re read Marx, as you claimed….this is not his ethos. I recommend you read works by Althusser, or the Frankfurt School if you want Socialist/Marxist opinions on Stalin’s autocratic regime.
I think the new deal saved capitalism. And it was essentially a new deal on steroids — war spending — that saved the economy.
‘I think the new deal saved capitalism.’
Exactly. This is what i was trying to say.
Your points might, however remotely be plausible in the absence of the pre-existing trade barriers, IOW, the egg came before the chicken.
This is the tact that most Euros took and it ain’t working (google: timbro euvsusa study english)
However, to finance the New Deal, FDR had to implement the Wealth Tax. Economically, the war was the big customer that enabled FDR to pull off a squeaker. Without it, the customer base wouldn’t expand enough on its own. Buying and selling to yourself might be a short-term solution, entirely unsustainable as a matter of practice, ask Enron.
Dr. New Deal vs Dr. Win-The-War @ us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture20.html
All in all, FDR’s policies were the equivilant of applying a series of bandages to a gaping wound that needed stitching.
‘This is the tact that most Euros took and it ain’t working ‘
This is actually a typical American idea, that is unsupported. Other studies have found the EU combined is actually more powerfully economically than the US. The study is ridiculously flawed, when you consider the FACT that the major EU powers – France, Germany, the UK are richer than any US state. The survey doesnt take into account the extremely poor distribution of wealth in the US where the top 5% earners own 59% of all wealth. In reality, aside from this misleading survey….the EU is quickly catching up with the US. I dont know why a lot of Americans feel the need to slam the EU. Its kind of sad really. Few people in Europe feel the need to compare the EU with the US in some kind of competition. Anyway, the EU has nothing to do with this discussion.
‘Economically, the war was the big customer that enabled FDR to pull off a squeaker.’
And in the meantime……the New Deal sent millions back to work, saved the banking system, gave workers some REAL rights…….
‘Buying and selling to yourself might be a short-term solution……’
Ironically, Republican administrations in the 20’s encouraged this no end.
‘All in all, FDR’s policies were the equivilant of applying a series of bandages to a gaping wound that needed stitching. ‘
Ive noticed you like to make a LOT of pointless analogies. Sticking to the grounds of your analogy, Hoover’s laissez faire Capitalist policies were like rubbing acid into a gaping wound that needed some kind of treatment.
bwwww-haa-haa…
“Anyway, the EU has nothing to do with this discussion.”
It does as a reference for comparing protectionist/interventionist/socialist/capitalist policy outcomes.
“the EU is quickly catching up with the US”
bwwww-ha-ha:
Better tell UCS Santa Barbara to update their World Economics syllabus;
There is only one Euro country that rivals the States — Luxembourg. In Asia, it is/was Hong Kong until Bejing started meddling.
Li’l ole Connecticut has something like twice the Per Capital GDP of sKerry’s beloved France. Only 4 States are relatively poor by Euro standards (AR, MT, WV & MS).
Given that 10 countries just joined the EU15, I haven’t found solid numbers yet — a good starting point, http://www.czso.cz/eng/redakce.nsf/i/home — but as a composite, the US’s $11 trillion GDP is approx ahead by of the EU15 by a good $2 tril. With the expansion, the overall EU25 GDP is larger, but consider that the population is over 450 (EU15=381) million to our 293 mil. Personally, I admire those new countries and hope they can rein in France & Germany who would dearly love for the “newbies” to share in the Old-Europe misery.
“In reality, aside from this misleading survey…”
ROTFLOL, No, the study is a wake up call. Here’s a quote for you:
‘Thursday September 2, 11:28 am ET
FRANKFURT (Reuters) – Economic recovery is gathering speed in the euro zone and inflation prospects are favorable, the European Central Bank said on Thursday as it kept interest rates steady to allow growth to take a firm hold. “Economic recovery in the euro area has maintained its momentum and should remain firm in coming quarters,” said Trichet after the ECB held its benchmark rate at 2.00 percent for the 15th month in a row.‘
The EU 15 got a little help from their new friends in making those strong, strong numbers.
And the US growth rate is what, as of Aug 04?
I can’t hear yooou.
(hint, it was over 3% in 2003, in middle of our recession, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)
All things remaining constant, the EU per-capital will pass us when??
But yeah, you want to compare touchy-feely metrics like the misery index. Of course, who wouldn’t want to weep in the back of a Beetle, when they could so so in the back seat of a Benz.
“All in all, FDR’s policies were the equivilant of applying a series of bandages to a gaping wound that needed stitching.”
I’ve always thought the problem with the new deal was that it didn’t do enough, not that it did too much. The Fascist attacks ended the republican hand-wringing.
”
(hint, it was over 3% in 2003, in middle of our recession, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)”
I’m sorry to point this out, but 2003 was a recovery year according to the NBER. I do admit that this has been an unprecedently horrible recovery for labor though, so I can see how one might think it was a recession.
‘Better tell UCS Santa Barbara to update their World Economics syllabus;
There is only one Euro country that rivals the States – Luxembourg. ‘
Ah, i see. You use average per capita GDP to measure the economic might of a country. Funny. Better tell whoever is teaching you economics to think again. As i pointed out, and you conviniently ignored…GDP per capita doesnt measure a countries economic strength, and in the case of the US the result is so high due to extreme mal distribution of wealth.
‘but as a composite, the US’s $11 trillion GDP is approx ahead by of the EU15 by a good $2 tril. With the expansion, the overall EU25 GDP is larger, but consider that the population is over 450 (EU15=381) million to our 293 mil.’
Your point being? You walked into this fact by comparing the USA to 25 sovreign nations. You seem to be perfectly willing to use combined averages of 25 all nations and compare them to the average of 1 nation. Yet you know that the combined GDP of the EU is greater than that of the US.
‘Personally, I admire those new countries and hope they can rein in France & Germany who would dearly love for the “newbies” to share in the Old-Europe misery.’
I suppose its nothing new for American conservatives to have an irrational hatred of France and Germany.
‘Economic recovery is gathering speed in the euro zone and inflation prospects are favorable, the European Central Bank said on Thursday as it kept interest rates steady to allow growth to take a firm hold. ‘
‘ROTFLOL, No, the study is a wake up call. ‘
Yeah. A wake up call to the fact major industrial powers like the UK and Germany are REALLY cess pits with a worse standard of living than Alabama. People starving on the streets and what not. Get a grip. You have no idea what you are talking about.
‘The EU 15 got a little help from their new friends in making those strong, strong numbers.’
Are you AWARE of the 10 new countries that joined the EU? Mostly Eastern European countries that are not nearly as economically advanced as the old EU. A lot of funding and work is needed to get these countries on a par with the rest of the EU.
Congratulations La Shawn. What a great debate. You really know how to stir a pot, don’t you.
Am I the only one who finds Omar bizarrely out of touch with reality?
“Am I the only one who finds Omar bizarrely out of touch with reality? ”
Prob not. Which doesn’t make you right.
All hail Omar Akhbar, and a thousand scoldings to all who punk the basis of his most esteemed ideology. I am so unworthy before you.
How silly of me to turn down an one-year all-expenses paid scholarship to study in France back in 1982, in order to pursue a career in Aviation with TexANG. Oh, the wickedness of my youth is indeed most greiveous.
How wasteful of me to jump off the fast track in ‘91, and invest $10k of my hard-earned money and 1-year sabbatical to live to Berlin and seek out what post-Warsaw Pact crash opportunity comes my way.
How reckless of me to not return after 1 year, opting instead to build up my business as an entreprenuer specializing in providing services & connections to Anglophones wishing to do business in Germany and Eastern Europe/Russia.
How irrational of me to think that I might and could thrive in the aftermath of The Wall, under a Kohl administration, meet/hang out with with hi-level officials (in spite of my mutt pedigree and lack of appropriate degrees), only to get kneecapped and bleed dry by a thousand papercuts by Schroeder.
Yes, yes, I see it all too clearly now. The only possible reason that I’m returning with my family to the US after almost 13 years in the wilderness — with a re-invented career in supply chain management and RFID tech — is because I’m am so full of irrational hate for the French/Germans and Euroland in general.
Thank you, thank you, O Omar Akhbar, thank you. Your sword of truth has cut away the veil of darkness that binds my eyelids fast together. Your most holy light has made me to see the folly of my ways.
Altho I am not worthy to even bow in your most-esteemed presence; please, I beg of you, please, spare me from your righteous wrath. If you will only spare me, I will hereafter never ever again speak of business, economics, race and any other topic you so decree.
For I now know that I know ‘nuh-think’! Heil to Omar Akhbar, fearless leader and discerner of the truth!
Haha……Seems ive hit a nerve, havnt I? Most of your most was babble thats totally irrelevant, and has nothing to do with my general statement that most conservatives hate France and Germany, and indeed old Europe, and so feel the need to attack the EU’s rather successful, and growing economy. I love the Arabic references too. Great.
‘Am I the only one who finds Omar bizarrely out of touch with reality? ‘
How am I? Wanna point this out?
Comments on this entry are closed.