Socialism explained, take 2

[saunterelle]

Wow, sorry to rain on your parade, but look, you have drudged up something I posted on another thread which was: "Friedman admitted that the New Deal's Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War." This is absolutely true. He said these words. You are extrapolating it to mean that I said he completely approved of all of FDR's policies which of course (being a conservative) he didn't. So, if you're going to call me a liar, please point out one thing I lied about.

Sure, FDR's New Deal had its share of problems, but the numbers prove it helped -- rather than hurt -- the macroeconomy. Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms [while] the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent. The one year of decline four years into FDR's Presidency (1937 - 1938) happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending and the economy went back down again."

So, basically, you are wrong once again. I know you would like to believe that conservative policies are the end all be all solution but the fact is they aren't. Face it.

[The New Guy]

sorry saunturelle but i have to call bullshit on that one.

at no time during the 8 years of the great depression under FDR did the unemployment rates drop below 14%. in fact, you will see that they rose on a number of occasions:


1930 - 8.9%
1931 - 15.9
1932 - 23.6
1933 - 24.9
1934 - 21.7
1935 - 20.1
1936 - 17.0
1937 - 14.3
1938 - 19.0
1939 - 17.2
1940 - 14.6
1941 - 9.9
1942 - 4.7


reference here



as FDR's treasury sec'y, henry morgenthau, jr. wrote in his private diary "we have tried spending money. we are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work... we have made good on our promises... i say after eight years of this administraion we has just as much unemployment as when we started... and an enormous debt to boot!"

help me out here, buddy. i just don't see the historical evidence that big gov't spending makes for a better economy and lower unemployment.

[saunterelle]

hmmm.... my data is according to University of California historian Eric Rauchway.

[saunterelle]

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke (one of the world's foremost experts on Great Depression economics) said "Only with the New Deal's rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression."

[The New Guy]

Apr 29, 2009 0:12:08 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

hmmm.... my data is according to University of California historian Eric Rauchway.

apparently, you didn't click the blue words in my post. if you did you would see that my data is from the US Dept. of Labor, Bureaus of Labor Statistics not some wingnut university historian with an agenda.

[/slap off]

funny, i couldn't find your quote by bernanke anywhere. might you have a link???

i do have this for you:

Many economists, exemplified by Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, believe that the economy should very quickly have returned to normal except for continued depressing influences, and point the finger to the lack of downward flexibility in prices and wages, encouraged by Roosevelt Administration polices such as the National Industrial Recovery Act.

[saunterelle]

Captainkona's bunk source is also a history professor. I guess they are not to be trusted.

[The New Guy]

consider yourself schooled.

let me know if i can be of further assistance.

[saunterelle]

sorry saunturelle but i have to call bullshit on that one.

at no time during the 8 years of the great depression under FDR did the unemployment rates drop below 14%. in fact, you will see that they rose on a number of occasions:


1930 - 8.9%
1931 - 15.9
1932 - 23.6
1933 - 24.9
1934 - 21.7
1935 - 20.1
1936 - 17.0
1937 - 14.3
1938 - 19.0
1939 - 17.2
1940 - 14.6
1941 - 9.9
1942 - 4.7


reference here

Ah, I see where you are misguided! FDR was inagurated in March of 1933. His second term ended in 1941. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt#First_term.2C_1933.E2.80.931937

Your chart deceptively includes years 1930, 1931, and 1932. FDR was not President during those years, the conservative Hoover was, and he was an abominable President. My information was correct. Consider yourself schooled and slapped with the truth (and the failures of another conservative President, Hoover).

At least I can admit it when I think my information is off. In this case, however, it wasn't.

[The New Guy]

come on santurelle. surely, you're smarter than you lead us to believe. afterall, you've got that swell "book learning" and all. we dumb hicks can't possibly be smarter than you, right?

pay attention young fella. you might learn something - like how to read someone's post.

my statement was "DURING THE 8 YEARS OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION UNDER FDR THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DID NOT DROP BELOW 14%. what part of that statement are you having trouble with?

despite gargantuan spending efforts (sound familiar? obama?) even the great FDR could not bring unemployment down to a reasonable rate.

ring the bell, school's out.

[saunterelle]

in fact, you will see that they rose on a number of occasions

You are being deceitful. They only rose once during FDR's first two terms in office. 1937 - 1938. Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms [while] the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent. The one year of decline four years into FDR's Presidency (1937 - 1938) happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending and the economy went back down again."

[capttankona]

Mar 12, 2009 18:34:41 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

I have greater respect for Ben Bernanke and (conservative economist) Milton Friedman. Here is what they had to say about FDR's approach:

"According to Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, "Only with the New Deal's rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression." In fact, even famed conservative economist Milton Friedman admitted that the New Deal's Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War."

As I have said, this topic is no longer yours to control. You are uninformed, I provided you a quote that disputes this claim you made in another thread. And since the FDIC was not a creation of the Roosevlet administration as you falsely claim, you have been fully pwned. Milton Friedman is way smarter then Bernanke, and has written way more books on the subject of the economy then Bernanke has obviously studied.

As to you saying the FDIC was a creation of the FDR administration, how about a direct quote from "A Brief History of Deposit Inusrance in the United States" prepared for the International Conference on Deposit Insurance by the FDIC. It blows your statement entirely out of the water.

"One of the chief proponents of federal deposit insurance in Congress was Representative Steagall. He has been credited with proposing the legislation that created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, leading the fight for its adoption in the House and helping to effect a compromise when chances for passage of the bill appeared doomed. Steagall’s achievement was all the more remarkable in view of the formidable opposition confronting the proponents of deposit insurance. Opposition emanated from the Roosevelt Administration, segments of the banking industry and from some members of Congress."

"Arguments offered against deposit insurance reflected both practical and philosophical considerations. Opponents asserted that deposit insurance would never work. They pointed to the defunct state-level deposit insurance programs to substantiate their argument. Another widely held view was that deposit insurance would remove penalties for bad management. Critics also charged that deposit insurance would be too expensive and that it would represent an unwarranted intrusion by the federal government into the private sector."

"Within the Roosevelt Administration, the Secretary of the Treasury Woodin was strongly opposed to the idea of federal deposit insurance. While historians have asserted that the Secretary’s views were partially responsible for President Roosevelt’s opposition to deposit insurance, accounts differ regarding the nature and extent of Roosevelt’s opposition. However, the Administration was not of one mind on the issue. Support was voiced by Vice President John Nance Garner and Jesse H. Jones of the RFC, among others. Prior to Roosevelt’s inauguration, Garner, then-Speaker of the House, had appealed to the President-elect to support deposit insurance. When Roosevelt declined, stating that it would never work, Garner predicted that deposit insurance legislation eventually would be passed."

I told you, the discussion of FDR is over. You may support the socialist or leftist agenda of FDR, but I don't. And I am not stupid enough to buy into the crap you post about it either. First you imply that Milton Friedman supported the New Deal, as we can see by the quote from anohter thread above. If you truly respect Milton Friedman then perhaps you should listen to what he said about the FDR administration, since he knows far more about the subject then you do. But, instead, you imply falsehoods and claim to understand something you have probably not spent any time studying. And there in lies the difference between you and me, I have sources and I have studied very hard. I know of what I am speaking, you do not.

Be my guest. Twist about some more in your attempt to spin this away. I am sure that everyone who reads this thread will agree that you have been pwned on this particular subject. Even if your leftist mind will not accept the obvious conclusion. And by the way, TNG is correct, unemployment never went down during any of FDR's term, it was Harry S Truman that improved this Nation after FDR, but you can never give a Blue Dog, true liberal Democrat credit, because he was not a socialist as you are.

[capttankona]

Apr 29, 2009 0:12:08 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

hmmm.... my data is according to University of California historian Eric Rauchway.

Ahem, to quote you, "he is a historian", a left wing historian, not an economist like Milton Friedman, who clearly states that FDR damaged the economy of the United States.