The Imaginary Greatness of FDR

[Oddball]

They were tag-team partners.

Mad Dog Höek and Killer Kadugan.

 

[8537]

I'm not ignoring the growth under FDR, I'm saying that his greatness was the institutionalization of the Progressive agenda (Central Planning, Central Bank) and not because he was an economic miracle worker, rescuing free enterprise from itself (sounds like Dubya)

Well, for someone attempting to claim FDR's "greatness" was "institutionalization of the progressive agenda", you've sure wasted a lot of bytes attempting to deny the success of his economic plan.

 

[Oddball]

If you mean "success" was the centralization and consolidation of political power into the District of Criminals, of that there is no doubt.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm not ignoring the growth under FDR, I'm saying that his greatness was the institutionalization of the Progressive agenda (Central Planning, Central Bank) and not because he was an economic miracle worker, rescuing free enterprise from itself (sounds like Dubya)

Well, for someone attempting to claim FDR's "greatness" was "institutionalization of the progressive agenda", you've sure wasted a lot of bytes attempting to deny the success of his economic plan.

You're not getting it, I totally dispute the notion that fundamentally altering the constitution of the US economy for a 2% annual reduction in unemployment defines greatness.

FDR was considered "Great" by academia because he institutionalized Socialism and not for his economic successes.

 

[8537]

I'm not ignoring the growth under FDR, I'm saying that his greatness was the institutionalization of the Progressive agenda (Central Planning, Central Bank) and not because he was an economic miracle worker, rescuing free enterprise from itself (sounds like Dubya)

Well, for someone attempting to claim FDR's "greatness" was "institutionalization of the progressive agenda", you've sure wasted a lot of bytes attempting to deny the success of his economic plan.

You're not getting it, I totally dispute the notion that fundamentally altering the constitution of the US economy for a 2% annual reduction in unemployment defines greatness.

Frank, i don't care what you "totally dispute". FDR took over an economy that was losing 10-12% of it's productive value every year, an economy with no working financial system, 4000 failing banks and no means by which to efficiently convert savings to investment, an economy where over 1 in 4 people were out of work.

Within WEEKS of his first piece of legislative agenda, the financial system stabilized and savings were able to channel into productive investment. the economy started to grow at a record pace for four straight years. the unemployment rate was reduced by 40%. The economy grew across virtually every sector, from construction to service to manufacturing.

 

[The Rabbi]

The banking system stabilized because he declared a bank holiday. Dead people are stable too.
FDR's policies contributed to the length of the depression, they did not cure it. And repudiating those policies in 1946 insured that another depression would not recur, which had been the fear.

 

[8537]

The banking system stabilized because he declared a bank holiday. Dead people are stable too.

Can you explain how a bank holiday magically recapitalized banks?

FDR's policies contributed to the length of the depression, they did not cure it. And repudiating those policies in 1946 insured that another depression would not recur, which had been the fear.

So you can't explain the fact that the economy started growing as soon as FDR's first agenda items were passed, and continued to do so at record pace - across virtually all sectors - for four straight years?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, for someone attempting to claim FDR's "greatness" was "institutionalization of the progressive agenda", you've sure wasted a lot of bytes attempting to deny the success of his economic plan.

You're not getting it, I totally dispute the notion that fundamentally altering the constitution of the US economy for a 2% annual reduction in unemployment defines greatness.

Frank, i don't care what you "totally dispute". FDR took over an economy that was losing 10-12% of it's productive value every year, an economy with no working financial system, 4000 failing banks and no means by which to efficiently convert savings to investment, an economy where over 1 in 4 people were out of work.

Within WEEKS of his first piece of legislative agenda, the financial system stabilized and savings were able to channel into productive investment. the economy started to grow at a record pace for four straight years. the unemployment rate was reduced by 40%. The economy grew across virtually every sector, from construction to service to manufacturing.

We had no working financial system, because as I've stated previously the Fed all but engineered a collapse of our banking system, sucking money OUT of the system, and raising discount rates at a time when banks needed liquidity and stability.

“The central banking system, set up primarily to render impossible the restriction of payments by commercial banks, itself joined the commercial banks in a more widespread, complete and economically disturbing restriction of payments than had ever been experienced in the history of the country. One can certainly sympathize with President Hoover’s comment about that episode: ‘I concluded the Reserve Board was indeed a weak reed for a nation to lean on in time of trouble.’” -- Milton Friedman

FDR used this collapse to have the government step in and begin taking over the US banking industry.

 

[8537]

We had no working financial system, because as I've stated previously the Fed all but engineered a collapse of our banking system, sucking money OUT of the system, and raising discount rates at a time when banks needed liquidity and stability.

“The central banking system, set up primarily to render impossible the restriction of payments by commercial banks, itself joined the commercial banks in a more widespread, complete and economically disturbing restriction of payments than had ever been experienced in the history of the country. One can certainly sympathize with President Hoover’s comment about that episode: ‘I concluded the Reserve Board was indeed a weak reed for a nation to lean on in time of trouble.’” -- Milton Friedman

I'm not sure what you're attempting to say here, other than that the Federal Reserve was far too restrictive with monetary policy and it played a role in bank runs.

A certain 1933 piece of legislation signed by FDR ended those bank runs and brought stability to the financial system.

FDR used this collapse to have the government step in and begin taking over the US banking industry.

"Take over the banking industry"? Please explain how FDR's legislation took over the banking industry.

 

[The Rabbi]

The banking system stabilized because he declared a bank holiday. Dead people are stable too.

Can you explain how a bank holiday magically recapitalized banks?

FDR's policies contributed to the length of the depression, they did not cure it. And repudiating those policies in 1946 insured that another depression would not recur, which had been the fear.

So you can't explain the fact that the economy started growing as soon as FDR's first agenda items were passed, and continued to do so at record pace - across virtually all sectors - for four straight years?

The economy did not start growing. GDP grew because of massive governemnt spending (sound familiar??). Business investment remained tepid until the war.
http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2006/08August/0806_GDP_NIPAs.pdf

 

[8537]

The banking system stabilized because he declared a bank holiday. Dead people are stable too.

Can you explain how a bank holiday magically recapitalized banks?

FDR's policies contributed to the length of the depression, they did not cure it. And repudiating those policies in 1946 insured that another depression would not recur, which had been the fear.

So you can't explain the fact that the economy started growing as soon as FDR's first agenda items were passed, and continued to do so at record pace - across virtually all sectors - for four straight years?

The economy did not start growing. GDP grew because of massive governemnt spending (sound familiar??). Business investment remained tepid until the war.
http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2006/08August/0806_GDP_NIPAs.pdf

Huh? The economy grew at record pace from 1933 to 1937.

1930 -8.6%
1931 -6.5%
1932 -13.1%
1933 -1.3%
1934 +10.9%
1935 +8.9%
1936 +13.0%
1937 +5.1%
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

and it was across virtually all sectors:
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Of course, if you'd actually read your own link you would have known that already.

 

[Avorysuds]

Had FDR been a Republican . . .

Hoover was a Republican you noob shit... And he was like FDR, and a moron.

 

[Mr Natural]

Had FDR been a Republican . . .

Hoover was a Republican you noob shit... And he was like FDR, and a moron.

Duh.

Everyone knows he was a republican.

And a fuck up, just like you.

 

[Avorysuds]

Had FDR been a Republican . . .

Hoover was a Republican you noob shit... And he was like FDR, and a moron.

Duh.

Everyone knows he was a republican.

And a fuck up, just like you.

And it would seem you just got owned. For me it had nothing to do with FDR being a Democrat or Republican, it was that Government funding helpeed the UE but it also created the uber poor... If anything you hated Hoover but loved FDR despite being very vey similar. You seem to care what letter is by the presidents name.

 

[Avorysuds]

What I think Frank is asking is when did FDR’s policies actually get the US out of the GD? He is not asking if massive Government spending brought down the UE rate or if it made the GDP grow, we know that Government spending can do these things. We also understand that Government spending like we have seen with Hoover/FDR and now Bush/Obama has consequences, you get a lower UE rate but only because of Government jobs, however the privet sector shrinks.

At some point Government won’t be able to sustain itself employing so many people and has to start defunding these jobs. When Government pulls the funds for “jobs created by Government” you see what happened at one point under FDR and that’s an instant rescission and a huge spike in unemployment. Without Government, it would seem no “healing” occurred.

So Frank’s question, to me is… When did FDR’s polices strengthen the US economy enough that without being floated, propped up, subsidized or whatever you like to call… that, without Government intervention of some sort did the country and economy “make it on its own.”

To me you can’t say “You broke your leg, but we put a cast on it, go play football because you’re good as new!” At what point did FDR heal the country and economy so that it could run on its own?

 

[Toro]

What I think Frank is asking is when did FDR’s policies actually get the US out of the GD? He is not asking if massive Government spending brought down the UE rate or if it made the GDP grow, we know that Government spending can do these things. We also understand that Government spending like we have seen with Hoover/FDR and now Bush/Obama has consequences, you get a lower UE rate but only because of Government jobs, however the privet sector shrinks.

At some point Government won’t be able to sustain itself employing so many people and has to start defunding these jobs. When Government pulls the funds for “jobs created by Government” you see what happened at one point under FDR and that’s an instant rescission and a huge spike in unemployment. Without Government, it would seem no “healing” occurred.

So Frank’s question, to me is… When did FDR’s polices strengthen the US economy enough that without being floated, propped up, subsidized or whatever you like to call… that, without Government intervention of some sort did the country and economy “make it on its own.”

To me you can’t say “You broke your leg, but we put a cast on it, go play football because you’re good as new!” At what point did FDR heal the country and economy so that it could run on its own?

The argument that I have heard isn't that government spending kept the unemployment rate higher. The argument that I have heard is that NIRA kept the unemployment rate higher. Its pretty silly to argue that government borrowing and spending in an economy with massive excess capacity increases unemployment.

The criticism of NIRA is almost certainly accurate. Keeping prices above market levels is generally a bad idea. However, other parts of the New Deal were enormously beneficial. Getting rid of the gold standard was a great idea. (Confiscating gold was not.) Milton Friedman has cited the creation of the FDIC as the single most important factor ending the Depression.

The bottom of the economy occurred before the New Deal was implemented. As for the affect of the stimulus, one can look at what happened when stimulus was withdrawn in 1937. The government attempted to balance its books and increased bank reserves, and the economy contracted sharply in 1937 and 38.

 

[8537]

What I think Frank is asking is when did FDR’s policies actually get the US out of the GD?

They helped foster the end of two recessions almost immediately by bringing order and stability to the financial sector. "The Depression" was actually two recessions with a record period of growth in the intervening years.

He is not asking if massive Government spending brought down the UE rate or if it made the GDP grow, we know that Government spending can do these things. We also understand that Government spending like we have seen with Hoover/FDR and now Bush/Obama has consequences, you get a lower UE rate but only because of Government jobs, however the privet sector shrinks.

The private sector did not shrink after FDR took office. It expanded- dramatically. the growth in GDP was across all sectors, private and public.

When Government pulls the funds for “jobs created by Government” you see what happened at one point under FDR and that’s an instant rescission and a huge spike in unemployment. Without Government, it would seem no “healing” occurred.

We had a recession in 37/38 because most New Deal programs were ended and FDR was convinced to focus on "fiscal discipline."

 

[Avorysuds]

What I think Frank is asking is when did FDR’s policies actually get the US out of the GD?

They helped foster the end of two recessions almost immediately by bringing order and stability to the financial sector. "The Depression" was actually two recessions with a record period of growth in the intervening years.

He is not asking if massive Government spending brought down the UE rate or if it made the GDP grow, we know that Government spending can do these things. We also understand that Government spending like we have seen with Hoover/FDR and now Bush/Obama has consequences, you get a lower UE rate but only because of Government jobs, however the privet sector shrinks.

The private sector did not shrink after FDR took office. It expanded- dramatically. the growth in GDP was across all sectors, private and public.

When Government pulls the funds for “jobs created by Government” you see what happened at one point under FDR and that’s an instant rescission and a huge spike in unemployment. Without Government, it would seem no “healing” occurred.

We had a recession in 37/38 because most New Deal programs were ended and FDR was convinced to focus on "fiscal discipline."

Again, that all sounds really great... Almost like it was a paradise, I'm not kidding...

When did the GD end due to FDR's policies? "Fixed," not floated. You described Government intervention and at the very end cited the 37/38 crash... It crashed because the privet sector was relatively small because near all the growth under FDR was Government jobs or in the some of the privet sectors unique situation of being falsely affected by Government, IE agriculture, meaning without Governement money/rules these markets that “grew” would crash as well.

If Government could employee us all, even for sitting around we would have 0% unemployment, but at some point, shortly, there would be no money left to "float" the country and collapse would occur.

So, when was the US and the economy able to take care of itself? Obviously not by 1937/38... So when?

 

[Avorysuds]

To explain my position, to be fair in this debate.
I would see the “correction” happening after WWII. WWII employed 16 million people, mostly poor and previously unemployed. WWII made what I believe to be obviously failed policy by FDR on tackling the economy look like it was a miracle genius “fix.”

There was a unique situation after WWII. Much of the world was just outright blown up, in ruins and looking to rebuild… The US had been untouched by WWII and being a superpower before the war America had an almost unavoidable opportunity to become a World Superpower due to manufacturing.

With the repealing of a lot of FDR’s horrible policies America was able to once again grow, the demand for America goods was at a history high, meaning despite taxes being up a company KNEW they were going to sell a product, and a lot of it…

So, imo it took the destruction of half the societies in the world and the of course the historic levels demand for someone (oh who could it be) to help rebuild, for a cost of course. Without WWII I believe it would have been possible America either learn quickly from FDR’s horrible economic policies or continue them and do away with the constitution and reform the US as something else, so the collapse of America as we knew it.

 

[8537]

When did the GD end due to FDR's policies? "Fixed," not floated.

1933. it started anew in 1938 and was quickly ended again. The problem is the perception in the general public of a decade long event. It wasn't. It was four distinct events: a crash, a recovery, a recession and another recovery.

You described Government intervention and at the very end cited the 37/38 crash... It crashed because the privet sector was relatively small because near all the growth under FDR was Government jobs or in the some of the privet sectors unique situation of being falsely affected by Government, IE agriculture, meaning without Governement money/rules these markets that “grew” would crash as well.

No, that's not what I said. The market contracted in 37/8 because money was removed from the system. That removal hurt the private sector AND the public sector and caused a brief retraction. It wasn't 1930 all over again. It was over and growth returned within a couple quarters instead of four years. The New Deal didn't claim to end the business cycle.

So, when was the US and the economy able to take care of itself? Obviously not by 1937/38... So when?

You'd have to explain what you mean by "taking care of itself."