@MrBEB123 Communism is when the government owns all the businesses. FDR created jobs in the public sector and didn't take any privately owned businesses away or the free market! That is communism, no free enterprise. FDR used the government to prop up capitalism long enough for it to heal. Definitely not a Communist.
There were Japanese camps--but I have read there WERE NO camps for Germans or Italians. Which, after all, makes sense because at the time, Americans of German heritage were about 40% of the U.S. population! And working in government. As well as Italians!
geez man, your english is terrible, your reading skills suck, you sniff and talk like you dont give a damn and it sounds like you dont even get what your talking about and just read one word after the other... you did this for school? if id be your teacher id give you an F lol...
...and Italians....it was a very different time. Lynching was still legal, Jim Crow was in full effect. Although, he was a hero to large minority groups, especially African-Americans, Catholics, and Jews, he needed support of southern democrats in order to pass his New deal legislation. As a result many civil rights laws had to wait unlit later. (ie1941)
No, internment camps. Big difference. While internment camps were horrendous, Japanese Americans were not systematically killed. Japanese Canadians were also interned.
what a rubbish narrative! he snorted snot up his nose, which totally distracted me from the point of the story! lol he need to get his bogies snorted out! plus hes bloody boring! i think a glasgow accent would have been far more effective! geez a fag! ya democratic madman! yer pure mad as fuck, go and gee they mad republican'ts a glesga kiss! fanniesxxxx
By far the most charismatic and revolutionary period since the declaration of independence and civil war. The new dilemma we face is not during a period of loose funds. The security that roosevelt provided america allowed the government to gain an immense amount of power since cooperations were at there lowest point and far from their peak of production. Many became millionaires during this period those did not invest were left in the dust. Amazing times so many resources and room for produce.
by the the first president to enact a income tax, was our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. And he had a particularly large rate for thewealthily, but the exact number I can't recall right now. The supreme court ruled in unconstitutional, and that's why there was a constitutional amendment passed, to start the income tax.
of course. But one major offset our country used to fight debt in this country was tariffs. Tariffs is what was used to finance the US treasury all the way up to around 1966. However the tariffs started to be relaxed after the teddy roosevelt administration. NAFTA put an end to tariffs, thanks to Clinton, but reagan and both bushes have had a hand in screwing up our trade policy as well.
Tom, the worse part of the depression was in 1933, but even though the investment that FDR started (the new deal) put us deeper in debt, that same investment was paid back and continued to bring in revenue that got us out of the depression. Fact: from the public works program (the new deal) the GPA grew 58% from 1933 to 1941. that is a MASSIVE recovery. our currant GPA is only about 3.1 %, and that was before the house market crashed.
Investing in the rich, is the trickle down economic theory, which means give large sums of money (investment) to the rich, and in return, they would invest in their companies to create new jobs.
The trickle down idea could work, except there was no regulation to tell them how to invest this money. So many of the rich just keep the money and set on it, or buy shit like bigger houses or bigger boats.
Also a point to make, when the government invests in you, you can w
because, it's actually OUR money. the bush tax cuts redistributed the wealth of the many to the few. in the last 8 years, American wages are down by 16%, and in that last 5 years the fortune 400 went to a net worth of 600 billion to 1.2 trillion!!!!!
this is why we are now in a recession, and why in 2008 we have had the most job lost in our lifetime.
FDR said Hoover spent to much money and that deepened the depression. After FDR was elected he outspent Hoover and the depression got worse. The FED caused the depression then and it is causing it now. The New Deal II will make things worse than the ever.
Tomrdee, spending isn't what caused the depression, what caused the depression is what hoover and coolidge spend the money on. When the scale tips so much to one side, and all the capitol is tied up in fewer and fewer hands, an economy slows down. this is what happened in the 30's, and thats is EXACTLY what has been happening since the bush crime family took over in 2001.
Then why did you support this wealth extraction from the masses then. You could have not spent any money during this period by not buying cell phones, houses, food, and anything else. Just horde it so that the top 30% can't get it therefore avoiding the economic collapse we have now. Do you feel ashamed of your greed and lust for ipods and starbuck coffee?
in every scenario in recorded history, every economy has had a large bubble collapse when the majority of it's capitol is invested in that nation's wealthiest. it happed in japan in the 1990's, it happen in Sweden in the 1980's-end of 1990's, and it happen in the United States in the 1930's, the 1980's, and now. In every single case, the wealthiest of the country were given the most money.
however the reverse is true when the majority of the capitol is invested in the masses.
Investment is a word that means one spends money to make money on something in return.
For example a bank, an agency, or a government, etc. can make a monitory investment to create jobs. When someone has a job, they now pay taxes, which will pay back the original investment, plus bring more money in, because that person is now working regularly and paying taxes. this is a lot of obama is talking about to help the economy now.
Why don't you be honest with yourself and just say you want to create a welfare state? Most people can get money for the things they want without the got "investing" in them. I just think that the word investment is used as a way of making govt welfare sound better to the masses.
Those are legit govt functions because they are needed by society. A welfare state is when you believe that the govt should hand out money to the populace to provide for them. The people then become dependant on the govt (or whoever is in charge) for their money. They don't go out and try to get money on their own by being productive because their source of money is the govt. Just look at what welfare did to Indian reservations.
of course there is proof. the proof is easy to find if you know where to look. follow any economic trends of any given country that we did, or similar what we did before the new deal and after. over and over again it is proven.
it does not take a financial genius to understand the more capitol that the masses have (the middle class), the more the economy grows.
this is actually a wrong assumption by many, usually fueled by republican talking points to rewrite history about the new deal.
from the lowest point of the great depression until 1940 the US economy grew by 58%. with the GPA growing at an average of 6.5% per year. that's more then it does now. the beginning of the war actually hurt the recovery effort (war always does) and the GPA dwindled to 4.5% after the beginning of the war effort until 1947.
1- There is no indisputable proof that the New Deal had a direct economic positive effect.
Oppositely, what is sure is that the New Deal was indeed a remarkable marketing-propaganda tool and did work in sustaining confidence in a better future. Moral of "troops is essential.
The New Deal improved the social environment.
Read Wikipedia "The Depression continued with decreasing effect until the U.S. entered the Second World War".
The economy would have grown anyways because its a part of the normal business cycle. Their are booms and bust periods. The great depression was a fluke made worse by the actions of the hoover administration and the collapse of the banks.
this normal business cycle argument that is made by many republican talking heads really doesn't hold up to water, when you compare the percentage rate of the income tax, the GPA, the unemployment rate, war policy, and the policies of any sitting president.
every time, without exception, when the income tax rate is lowered on the wealthly, we have a bubble and collapse, every time, without exception, when the tax rate is higher then 70% on the wealthy we have long term growth, without a crash
The 1920s were rife with it. Under the administrations of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, stocks could be bought on credit, giving a false sense of economic value. This in turn only fueled stock speculation, meaning the value listed on stocks were never accurate. You never knew what you had.
Another problem was tariffs and not regulating them correctly. We depended on other nations for trade, but never adjusted the tariffs accordingly. It caused a serious reduction in foreign trade.
Nevermind the business model of the United States was full of worker abuse and racial prejudice, especially in areas like Harlem and Chicago.
The term deregulation didn't come about until the latter part of the 20th Century. I'd suggest reading up on these events. Some books I'd suggest would be "Or Does It Explode?: Black Harlem in the Great Depression" by Cheryl Greenberg and "Freedom From Fear" by David Kennedy. Both are excellent works that can explain more in detail.
The term "deregulation" probably came about because people wanted to control businesses and yes there were probably were worker abuse and so on but those workers can quit and find better jobs where they were treated better.
There was no minimum wage at the time and the 1920s were a completely different era. Worker abuse was rampant all OVER. When you were getting paid jackshit, that was probably the best you can do at the time.
I suggest looking into some literature on the subject, such as Jean Edward Smith's "FDR."
Americans could afford cars for the first time, and a lot of them had electricity for the first time. Workers were paid well, and there was unprecedented prosperity, even for those who were not super rich.
Before the Rural Electrification Act, 90% of rural populations in the United States didn't HAVE access to electricity. Americans couldn't necessarily afford the cars, but newly established credit plans insured they could make payments. Worker abuse was rampant in the 1920s, and what prosperity there was was limited, particularly to African-Americans.
Perhaps you should start showing where you're getting your evidence from, because I can if need be.
Throughout the 1920s, car prices got lower and lower. Maybe you should read up on Henry Ford. The 1920s was the first time that we started developing suburbs and a middle class. The farmers missed out on the 1920s prosperity because there were too many farmers producing too much food, and food prices were thus very low.
And if workers were being abused so much, how come labor unions declined in the 1920s? The situation with workers was much better in the 1920s than, say the 1860s.
Overproduction was one key aspect to the farmers' demise, but the automobile industry was not as well as you say. The automobile industry's growth had slowed by 1925 and wouldn't return to its former production levels until the war and military production. The AFL was mostly responsible for its own reduced membership due to the rift between skilled and unskilled workers. Union membership only decreased from 5 to 3.5 million between 1923 and 1929.
yeah.. its a completely different situation now.. Our companies operate still... just not in America.. =( Manufacturing of the items which gives jobs to Americans are gone.. yet are Sold back to us. in a sense Credit is and has been used for the purchasing of those goods. with no real means of being able to make money from manufacturing. a few skeleton businesses remain. Toyota is nice by giving us the ability to manufacture their vehicles but there are far to few to help maintain our spending.
great job on this it helped me with my history project :D
thetangledhand 1 month ago
Haven't you seen the new stuff? Current economists say FDR actually prolonged the great depression with his new deal
emmersl 5 months ago 3
I liked it helped me with my homework ;)
NJSproductionsLOL 11 months ago
Good job kid. Don't let what others say bother you.
Some people are just cruel & mean & don't know any better.
Their words are a reflection on them; not you.
Lightmane321 1 year ago
Comment removed
samiehmed 1 year ago
very very good ignore the trolls this it good stuf
lukedeane99 1 year ago
Rich think poor are
Crazy
Poor think Rich
Are Better
Same old same old
Sing us a new tune, Eh?
jamesboake 1 year ago
omg who is this fucker? I am trying to educate myself by listening to a 13 year old goat rider smoking crack while he is talking shit...
Rehab and charismatic training..
Dazzletoad 1 year ago
It should read FDR a history of wealth redistribution and Communism.
MrBEB123 1 year ago
@MrBEB123 Communism is when the government owns all the businesses. FDR created jobs in the public sector and didn't take any privately owned businesses away or the free market! That is communism, no free enterprise. FDR used the government to prop up capitalism long enough for it to heal. Definitely not a Communist.
IntheKeyofZ 1 year ago 4
This is a horrible documentary.
1986hangman 2 years ago
Very well done
commonsenseradio 2 years ago 3
Give the kid a break. He's obviously like twelve years old.
kouklasou81 2 years ago 6
@kouklasou81 sounds older than 12 to me
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
There were Japanese camps--but I have read there WERE NO camps for Germans or Italians. Which, after all, makes sense because at the time, Americans of German heritage were about 40% of the U.S. population! And working in government. As well as Italians!
starnja2009 2 years ago
and boom goes the dynamite
PrestonC651 2 years ago
geez man, your english is terrible, your reading skills suck, you sniff and talk like you dont give a damn and it sounds like you dont even get what your talking about and just read one word after the other... you did this for school? if id be your teacher id give you an F lol...
googlegogo 2 years ago
As far as I know- Yes, he did.
muczacios 2 years ago
Didn't FDR put Japanese Americans in concentration camps?
BigBillClinton 2 years ago
yeah... He was orginally against it but he sighned the order anyway... He sent German Americans to...
avengemm9dog 2 years ago
...and Italians....it was a very different time. Lynching was still legal, Jim Crow was in full effect. Although, he was a hero to large minority groups, especially African-Americans, Catholics, and Jews, he needed support of southern democrats in order to pass his New deal legislation. As a result many civil rights laws had to wait unlit later. (ie1941)
verstwo2 2 years ago
No, internment camps. Big difference. While internment camps were horrendous, Japanese Americans were not systematically killed. Japanese Canadians were also interned.
KanisTeacher 2 years ago
I REALLY hope this will help me in my exam tomorrow..
AwesomeTie 2 years ago
good video, helped me understand more the day before my exam anyway!:D
jamiequinlan 2 years ago
what a rubbish narrative! he snorted snot up his nose, which totally distracted me from the point of the story! lol he need to get his bogies snorted out! plus hes bloody boring! i think a glasgow accent would have been far more effective! geez a fag! ya democratic madman! yer pure mad as fuck, go and gee they mad republican'ts a glesga kiss! fanniesxxxx
pe4cefrog 2 years ago
By far the most charismatic and revolutionary period since the declaration of independence and civil war. The new dilemma we face is not during a period of loose funds. The security that roosevelt provided america allowed the government to gain an immense amount of power since cooperations were at there lowest point and far from their peak of production. Many became millionaires during this period those did not invest were left in the dust. Amazing times so many resources and room for produce.
sean1er 2 years ago
I love the Army Fight song at around 4 minutes.... west Point!
derrydooey1289 3 years ago
by the the first president to enact a income tax, was our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. And he had a particularly large rate for thewealthily, but the exact number I can't recall right now. The supreme court ruled in unconstitutional, and that's why there was a constitutional amendment passed, to start the income tax.
oipunkguy 3 years ago
of course. But one major offset our country used to fight debt in this country was tariffs. Tariffs is what was used to finance the US treasury all the way up to around 1966. However the tariffs started to be relaxed after the teddy roosevelt administration. NAFTA put an end to tariffs, thanks to Clinton, but reagan and both bushes have had a hand in screwing up our trade policy as well.
oipunkguy 3 years ago
Tom, the worse part of the depression was in 1933, but even though the investment that FDR started (the new deal) put us deeper in debt, that same investment was paid back and continued to bring in revenue that got us out of the depression. Fact: from the public works program (the new deal) the GPA grew 58% from 1933 to 1941. that is a MASSIVE recovery. our currant GPA is only about 3.1 %, and that was before the house market crashed.
oipunkguy 3 years ago
Investing in the rich, is the trickle down economic theory, which means give large sums of money (investment) to the rich, and in return, they would invest in their companies to create new jobs.
The trickle down idea could work, except there was no regulation to tell them how to invest this money. So many of the rich just keep the money and set on it, or buy shit like bigger houses or bigger boats.
Also a point to make, when the government invests in you, you can w
oipunkguy 3 years ago
"So many of the rich just keep the money and set on it, or buy shit like bigger houses or bigger boats."
Why can't they keep their money and sit on it. Its their money!
timbosforporn 3 years ago
because, it's actually OUR money. the bush tax cuts redistributed the wealth of the many to the few. in the last 8 years, American wages are down by 16%, and in that last 5 years the fortune 400 went to a net worth of 600 billion to 1.2 trillion!!!!!
this is why we are now in a recession, and why in 2008 we have had the most job lost in our lifetime.
oipunkguy 3 years ago
FDR said Hoover spent to much money and that deepened the depression. After FDR was elected he outspent Hoover and the depression got worse. The FED caused the depression then and it is causing it now. The New Deal II will make things worse than the ever.
tomrdee 3 years ago
Tomrdee, spending isn't what caused the depression, what caused the depression is what hoover and coolidge spend the money on. When the scale tips so much to one side, and all the capitol is tied up in fewer and fewer hands, an economy slows down. this is what happened in the 30's, and thats is EXACTLY what has been happening since the bush crime family took over in 2001.
oipunkguy 3 years ago
Then why did you support this wealth extraction from the masses then. You could have not spent any money during this period by not buying cell phones, houses, food, and anything else. Just horde it so that the top 30% can't get it therefore avoiding the economic collapse we have now. Do you feel ashamed of your greed and lust for ipods and starbuck coffee?
timbosforporn 3 years ago
if you want hard numbers, let me know, i can prove it.
oipunkguy 3 years ago
in every scenario in recorded history, every economy has had a large bubble collapse when the majority of it's capitol is invested in that nation's wealthiest. it happed in japan in the 1990's, it happen in Sweden in the 1980's-end of 1990's, and it happen in the United States in the 1930's, the 1980's, and now. In every single case, the wealthiest of the country were given the most money.
however the reverse is true when the majority of the capitol is invested in the masses.
oipunkguy 3 years ago
How do you invest in the masses or the rich? I'm just wondering how this concept works.
timbosforporn 3 years ago
Investment is a word that means one spends money to make money on something in return.
For example a bank, an agency, or a government, etc. can make a monitory investment to create jobs. When someone has a job, they now pay taxes, which will pay back the original investment, plus bring more money in, because that person is now working regularly and paying taxes. this is a lot of obama is talking about to help the economy now.
oipunkguy 3 years ago
Why don't you be honest with yourself and just say you want to create a welfare state? Most people can get money for the things they want without the got "investing" in them. I just think that the word investment is used as a way of making govt welfare sound better to the masses.
timbosforporn 3 years ago
Do you think we live in a welfare state because we pay cops and firemen with tax payers' dollars?
oipunkguy 3 years ago
Those are legit govt functions because they are needed by society. A welfare state is when you believe that the govt should hand out money to the populace to provide for them. The people then become dependant on the govt (or whoever is in charge) for their money. They don't go out and try to get money on their own by being productive because their source of money is the govt. Just look at what welfare did to Indian reservations.
timbosforporn 3 years ago
you seem to have a hatred for thoses of the least of us. why?
oipunkguy 3 years ago
of course there is proof. the proof is easy to find if you know where to look. follow any economic trends of any given country that we did, or similar what we did before the new deal and after. over and over again it is proven.
it does not take a financial genius to understand the more capitol that the masses have (the middle class), the more the economy grows.
oipunkguy 3 years ago
this is actually a wrong assumption by many, usually fueled by republican talking points to rewrite history about the new deal.
from the lowest point of the great depression until 1940 the US economy grew by 58%. with the GPA growing at an average of 6.5% per year. that's more then it does now. the beginning of the war actually hurt the recovery effort (war always does) and the GPA dwindled to 4.5% after the beginning of the war effort until 1947.
oipunkguy 3 years ago
1- There is no indisputable proof that the New Deal had a direct economic positive effect.
Oppositely, what is sure is that the New Deal was indeed a remarkable marketing-propaganda tool and did work in sustaining confidence in a better future. Moral of "troops is essential.
The New Deal improved the social environment.
Read Wikipedia "The Depression continued with decreasing effect until the U.S. entered the Second World War".
Newtoon 3 years ago
The economy would have grown anyways because its a part of the normal business cycle. Their are booms and bust periods. The great depression was a fluke made worse by the actions of the hoover administration and the collapse of the banks.
timbosforporn 3 years ago
this normal business cycle argument that is made by many republican talking heads really doesn't hold up to water, when you compare the percentage rate of the income tax, the GPA, the unemployment rate, war policy, and the policies of any sitting president.
every time, without exception, when the income tax rate is lowered on the wealthly, we have a bubble and collapse, every time, without exception, when the tax rate is higher then 70% on the wealthy we have long term growth, without a crash
oipunkguy 3 years ago
Were there economic crashes before the income tax system.
timbosforporn 3 years ago
You're completely ignoring deregulation as a reason for the depression, as well as buying stocks on credit.
skankuser 3 years ago
I would like to know what deregulation was done prior to the great depression?
timbosforporn 3 years ago
The 1920s were rife with it. Under the administrations of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, stocks could be bought on credit, giving a false sense of economic value. This in turn only fueled stock speculation, meaning the value listed on stocks were never accurate. You never knew what you had.
Another problem was tariffs and not regulating them correctly. We depended on other nations for trade, but never adjusted the tariffs accordingly. It caused a serious reduction in foreign trade.
skankuser 3 years ago
your blaming the sympthoms instead of the disease. THE FED IS THE SOLE PROBLEM AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
slickbtk 2 years ago 2
Nevermind the business model of the United States was full of worker abuse and racial prejudice, especially in areas like Harlem and Chicago.
The term deregulation didn't come about until the latter part of the 20th Century. I'd suggest reading up on these events. Some books I'd suggest would be "Or Does It Explode?: Black Harlem in the Great Depression" by Cheryl Greenberg and "Freedom From Fear" by David Kennedy. Both are excellent works that can explain more in detail.
skankuser 3 years ago
The term "deregulation" probably came about because people wanted to control businesses and yes there were probably were worker abuse and so on but those workers can quit and find better jobs where they were treated better.
timbosforporn 3 years ago
There was no minimum wage at the time and the 1920s were a completely different era. Worker abuse was rampant all OVER. When you were getting paid jackshit, that was probably the best you can do at the time.
I suggest looking into some literature on the subject, such as Jean Edward Smith's "FDR."
skankuser 3 years ago
LOL.
Americans could afford cars for the first time, and a lot of them had electricity for the first time. Workers were paid well, and there was unprecedented prosperity, even for those who were not super rich.
Stop talking out of your ASS!!!!!!!!!
Justgetout 2 years ago
Before the Rural Electrification Act, 90% of rural populations in the United States didn't HAVE access to electricity. Americans couldn't necessarily afford the cars, but newly established credit plans insured they could make payments. Worker abuse was rampant in the 1920s, and what prosperity there was was limited, particularly to African-Americans.
Perhaps you should start showing where you're getting your evidence from, because I can if need be.
skankuser 2 years ago
Throughout the 1920s, car prices got lower and lower. Maybe you should read up on Henry Ford. The 1920s was the first time that we started developing suburbs and a middle class. The farmers missed out on the 1920s prosperity because there were too many farmers producing too much food, and food prices were thus very low.
And if workers were being abused so much, how come labor unions declined in the 1920s? The situation with workers was much better in the 1920s than, say the 1860s.
Justgetout 2 years ago
Overproduction was one key aspect to the farmers' demise, but the automobile industry was not as well as you say. The automobile industry's growth had slowed by 1925 and wouldn't return to its former production levels until the war and military production. The AFL was mostly responsible for its own reduced membership due to the rift between skilled and unskilled workers. Union membership only decreased from 5 to 3.5 million between 1923 and 1929.
skankuser 2 years ago
without the worldwar2 and its huge production of weapons the great depression could not be ended.
it's going to be very interesting to have a look how obamas "new deal2" is going to affect the economy... because today the situation is much equal:
there's too much production with shrinking consumer spendings (because of shrinking incomes of the masses...)
raiserhell 3 years ago
yeah.. its a completely different situation now.. Our companies operate still... just not in America.. =( Manufacturing of the items which gives jobs to Americans are gone.. yet are Sold back to us. in a sense Credit is and has been used for the purchasing of those goods. with no real means of being able to make money from manufacturing. a few skeleton businesses remain. Toyota is nice by giving us the ability to manufacture their vehicles but there are far to few to help maintain our spending.
Tunedup81 3 years ago
You did a good job on this.
snwbnny9 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Did Trey and Matt record this? Worthless.
mortysand 3 years ago
No.
mrscience00 3 years ago
this helped alot thanx
coolboy20062 3 years ago
Great summary. Very useful for my exam tomorrow.
69underscore69 3 years ago
SLACKER!!!!!!
FaNaSko 3 years ago
Indeed.
69underscore69 3 years ago
thank you this was really useful for revision :)
emmabould 3 years ago
this is brilliant, great presentation
classicaldizzyplayer 3 years ago
your a bad reader.
Alysm5 3 years ago
great job ! u should have got a good mark for this ! helped me alot ! thanks
jaboyle 4 years ago 10