The depression started because the Federal Reserve let there be 33% unemployment, and Hoover instituted tariffs and a minimum wage. Another problem was that a lot of states didn't let banks move outside of state lines, so you had thousands of little banks, as opposed to ten big banks in Canada. Which is why Canada didn't have a bank crisis. The new deal only worsened the depression.
I believe I can offer a soundbite for why the New Deal prevented recovery and prolonged recession: Demand Side economics attempts to increase demand while decreasing the means of supply.
BAsically, welfare economics reduces the need of the poor to work, decreases the means of the rich to provide work (especially with minimum wage regulation etc) and keeps job-seekers and jobs quite separate.
Paul Krugman is an absolute shill block-head. Why would any sane person want his opinion when this Keynesian tripe has consistently proved to be a joke? Obama's driving the whole country into the ground where it's going to metamorphose into a stew of poverty, unemployment, war & class division.
Oh well, as Hitler said: "if the sheep are too stupid to realise they are being lead to the slaughter house, then let them be slaughtered". This video will hopefully save a couple of people, so ty.
Can you explain how it is that whenever your economists make a forecast usually the exact opposite of whatever they say is going to happen actually happens? I don't know if you were watching CNN in 2006 when I was hearing what great shape the housing industry is in, or in 2008 when I was hearing how we might experience just a "minor slowdown", but Keynesians are consistently wrong. My question is, how do you keep your faith amidst all these utter failures?
Can you explain how the gold standard is any more complex than saying "Wow gold is shiny as HELL I bet this has an objective value" also can you explain why Ron Paul has links to gold giant GoldMan Sacks
It doesn't matter if a monetary standard is based in gold or petrified mammoth turds, but a rational monetary policy must limit the supply of money a government is able to create, and the only way to do that is to tie the creation of money to the amount of any finite and divisible thing. Gold is a finite soft metal and easily divisible, making it a very practical decision. The reasons why we don't have a gold standard right now are political and have nothing to do with economics.
Can you answer my question? Do you not believe that consistent wrongness constitutes rational grounds for not listening to someone? The Keynesian methodology for forecasting economic events has been totally discredited by the facts of reality on numerous occasions. If a weatherman says "tomorrow will be sunny" and tomorrow comes a hurricane, are you going to listen to that weatherman anymore? Why not listen to people who are right?
The New Deal lengthened the Depression by seven years? Let's see...GDP had recovered by 1936...so that means that the Depression would have ended before it started! Cool!
Or, if you're referring to unemployment, well unemployment had completely recovered by 1942, so that means without the new deal, it would have recovered by 1935. So you're telling us, it would have recovered in two years after heading into the toilet for four? Yeah, right.
Maybe he should be channeling Kennedy and Lincoln... Andrew Jackson was the ONLY prez to ever pay off the national debt... He did so by routing out the banksters who were charging us INTEREST and stealing our labor and productivity.... Obama is laughable. He is a bankster stooge.
Roosevelt's New Deal was just sweeping the real problem under the carpet and that was and IS the controllers of our money supply.... Solve this and we will have NO national debt....
B.S. You Republican shits fail to mention the fact that The Great Depression was worse between the years 1930 and 1933. The 1937-1938 Depression was not nearly as bad as the phase that occured under Herbert Hoover's time in office. My grandparents survived because of Roosevelt. Even Ronald Reagan praised Roosevelt as a strong leader AFTER HE BECAME PRESIDENT
The Depression lasted until 1943? How can a depression end in the middle of a war, when so many men who would otherwise have been producing useful things were instead under arms, and when 40% of the economy was dedicated to the war? And this is what "most estimates" conclude? Does anyone else find this nonsensical?
You may notice a chart of the US unemployment rate in this video. The spike between July 1937 and June 1938 was a result of an easing back on the employment programs. The chart shows that the unemployment rate dropped during World War II, but this is arguably the largest government program in history, a vast international government program involving the US, the Soviet Union and the British Commonwealth to push back the Nazi regime, and destroy the power of Hitler.
Economist Roger W. Garrison says that the bust of The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve -- they held interest rates below the natural rate of interest during the 1920's, creating an unsustainable credit expansion boom.
Does that sound familiar?
Professor Garrison has an illuminating lecture titled "The Great Depression" that you can listen to online.
Sorry, but that theory is not as widely accepted as the Keynes theory. The structure of the Austrian business cycle was different than the American laissez-faire system at the time. PARTISAN-SHITS LIKE YOU NEED TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT HERBERT HOOVER LED AMERICA TO ALMOST-CERTAIN RUIN
How did Hoover ruin the country? He was only President for several months before the stock market tanked. Oh and you using using caps lock to try to back up your "statement" further shows your incompetence and lack of intelligence.
Stupid jackass, I WAS A TOP STUDENT THROUGHOUT MY YEARS IN PUBLIC SCHOOL. I AM ONLY CAPITALIZING THE WORD THAT DISCUSS MY MAIN ARGUMENTS. IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN USING A DAMN HIGHLIGHTER. AFTER THE STOCK MARKET CRASHED, HOOVER MADE IT WORSE. YOU HAVE THE IQ OF A SOAP-DISH
Nope, Hoover worsened the economy by giving the wealthy a good share of taxpayer benefits. The stock market crashed, and Hoover's laissez faire policies made the economy worse. I will not lie, Hoover at first opposed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. He passed it in 1930, but it gave the wealthy a far better bargain than it did for the middle class. The tariff was a pro-business policy
You just contradicted yourself, you simpleton. If Hoover really did "give the wealthy a good share of taxpayer benefits" than by definition this is NOT a laissez-faire policy at all. And a tariff is NOT a laissez-faire policy. IF Hoover had been using a laissez-faire policy, then the recession would have resolved much more quickly. Government intervention always prolongs the pain.
Wait a minute, wasn't Hoover a LIBERAL Republican? What facts do you have to back up your claims, in fact its well documented that 1937 was the worst year of the Depression.
Stupid jackass, HOOVER WAS A LAISSEZ-FAIRE CONSERVATIVE. HIS SMOOT HAWLEY TARIFF ACT MADE THE ECONOMY WORSE. IT'S WELL DOCUMENTED THAT 1932 WAS WORSE YEAR OF THE DEPRESSION AS WELL. GROW A BRAIN
You are incredibly misinformed. Hoover intervened in the economy by raising taxes and tariffs. (High tariffs are just another left-wing way to interfere with business and trade). This made the economy worse and it gave FDR a precedent to intervene in the economy himself. FDR's taxes, regulations, politically-guided spending, and persecution of American businessmen made a minor slowdown into The Great Depression.
Laissez-faire brought the US out of the Depression of 1920.
Wrong, JACKASS. Hoover's Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was an example of pro-big business politics, AND HE DIDN'T PASS IT UNTIL AFTER THE STOCK MARKET CRASHED. The tariff hurt the middle class a hell of a lot more than did the wealthy. The fact is: Hoover's laissez-faire policies caused the market to crash in 1929, AND HE ONLY PUT SALT ON THE MASSIVE WOUND WITH THE ACT. Roosevelt didn't persecute businessmen, BUT HE DID PISS THEM OFF BY BLOCKING THEIR GREED FROM SPREADING
Ha! Read FDR's criticism of Hoover leading up to the 1932 election. He called Hoover's administration the most spendthrift in history and resolved to rollback federal government intervention. The Democrat Party platform for that year is also worth a read. Of course FDR did everything he accused Hoover of doing and to a much greater extent, completely counter to his party's platform that he ran on. Oh, and laissez-faire and conservative are not synonymous. Both major parties are Keynesian.
Laissez-Faire and Keynesian policies ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Roosevelt won in 1932 because the major shit-hole the country was in, NOT BECAUSE HE PERSUADED PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR HIM THROUGH THE USE OF NEGATIVE ATTACKS. YOU HAVE THE IQ OF A JACKASS
"Laissez-Faire and Keynesian policies ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT."
Uh.. no shit? Clearly you misunderstand me. Hoover is often cited in textbooks, and by the uninformed at large, as a conservative and therefore he is also "laissez-faire." He clearly wasn't "laissez-faire" so I am merely highlighting a common fallacy. In addition, and as a separate comment, I stated that both parties are basically Keynesian.
And I never stated or insinuated that Roosevelt won by attacking Hoover's policies.
No, HOOVER WAS VERY MUCH LAISSEZ-FAIRE. HE SUPPORTED NOT GETTING THE GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN COMMERCE TRADING; WHICH IS THE PRINCIPAL OF LAISSEZ-FAIRE BELIEFS. This caused the 1929 crash, AND HOOVER ONLY ACTED WHEN HE HAD NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO DO SO. The only act he even passed to help relieve the depression WAS THE SMOOT-HAWLEY TARIFF Act HE DID NOTHING ELSE. Keynesian is completely different from Laissez-Faire too. It SUPPORTS MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION OVER BANKS AND COMMERCE.
Are you honestly suggesting that the failure of the executive to interfere with market forces caused the stock market crash?
And once more you suggest that I believe Keynesianism and "laissez-faire" are similar. I'm not sure how you've derived that notion, but obviously the two are very different; though perhaps you have a divergent notion of these differences. Keynesian economics principally enables & encourages massive deficit spending and therefore militarism.
What I was obviously conveying is that FDR's criticism of Hoover is one piece of evidence that shows he was as much of a statist as FDR. Merely attempting to debunk the myth of Hoover as a laissez-faire capitalist that you want to perpetuate. If FDR, the great executive interventionist of the 20th century, criticized his predecessor consistently for running up massive deficits and generally intervening in the economy unnecessarily, how can you refer to Hoover's policies as "laissez-faire?"
Sir, Hoover opposed government involvement in farm commodities and did not believe the government should have much involvement in business expansion. HE WAS ONLY CONCERNED WITH HELPING AMERICANS NOT ACQUIRE STOCKS FROM BANK LOANS. HE BELIEVED THAT PROSPERITY CAME THROUGH BUSINESS CEOs AND BUYING STOCKS FROM WAGES. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS BELIEF AND KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS.
"How many free market economists does it take to change a light bulb?"
A: "None." "You just sit in the dark and wait for the invisible hand to do it."
In the throws of the Great Depression...how long could the American state...sit in the dark and wait for something to happen?! The success of the New Deal is not to be measured strictly in economic terms....but in the maintainance of Political Stability and the fact that we didn't follow the examples of Germany and or the Soviet Union.
This short-run reality overwhelms any self-equilibrating tendencies toward a long-run, steady state of an economy producing along a stable growth path with low unemployment and full capacity utilization.
The "Crankyness" is this neo-classical/austrian approach is the assumption of the efficacious invisible hand to deliver and economy to this long-run position.......which reminds me of the fitting joke:
The labor market of the time was not capable of functioning .....even is the effective wage was zero. As JMK would observe, the collapse of Aggregate Demand had sent an unambiguous signal to employers that existing levels of production and output could not be sold.....thus exacerbating the self reinforcing cycle of job shedding and reduction of output.
As an economist, it is curious indeed that there is an assumption that the "Invisible hand" was capable of equilibrating labor, financial and product markets if only "structural rigidities were removed....in other words....that wages were allowed to fall to their equilibrium level and that the visible hand of the state would not "distort prices" et al.
How much do you know about the New Deal, economics and American History. I ask because you are able to call someone a crank. I"m not trying to insult, I guess I'm trying to figure out if you just have presuppositions that make you dislike or like certain views, or if you actually know what you're talking about and are able to accurately asses the New Deal's success.
And for God's sake, the GOP took over in 2000 with a $200 billion a year SURPLUS and screwed up so badly they doubled the national debt. So spare me the lectures. You've lost all credibility.
By the way, Bush's tax cuts were $1.3 trillion - so how is Obama's $500 billion in spending and $300 billion in tax cuts so damn irresponsible. Republicans need to STFU and let the adults run things for a while. The Dems will fix the economy, just like Clinton did when he took over from Bush 1.
Are you serious? The best thing Clinton did was to ride the trend started by Reagan. And do I need to remind you the country was in a recession when Bubba left office?
And you tell me I can't make up my own facts! Pot meet kettle.
You are wrong. The recession did not start until March 2001 - you may argue we were on a path to a recession - but you can't just make up your own damn facts. And can I remind YOU that Bush 1 left a recession for the Clinton administration, which actually started during the Bush Administration and during the Clinton presidency we pulled out of it and went from a $370 billion deficit to a $200 billion surplus.
According to the President of the National Bureau of Economic Research, "It is clear that the revised data have made our original March date for the start of the recession much too late."
But he's probably just a political hack, you know, for having given you your March date in the first place. Do some research please.
The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession.
You mean what the Republican controlled Congress did during the 90's? Clinton was too busy getting bjs. I seem to remember him fighting the Republicans tooth and claw when it came to balancing the budget. The New Deal was an utter failure, leaving massive piles of debt and double digit unemployment, it failed, why do you think the economy is tanking now, because of government intervention in the market.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The New Deal revived the economy and brought America OUT OF THE DEPRESSION. Roosevelt won a record breaking 523:8 elector ratio in 1936 as well. While I do admit the depression was bad, IT WASN'T NEARLY AS BAD AS HOOVER'S. WHEN HOOVER ENDED HIS TERM, UNEMPLOYMENT WAS AT LEAST 25% NATIONWIDE. Also, THE ECONOMY QUICKLY RECOVERED FROM THAT DEPRESSION BY END OF 1939 AS WELL. THERE'S MANY RELIABLE-AS WELL AS NEUTRAL AND NON-PARTISAN- WEBSITES TO BACK MY CLAIM. GO BACK TO SUCKING HANNITY'S DICK
The New Deal prolonged and worsened the depression. The New Deal was the reason the depression became The Great Depression. When the government restrained itself, the depression of 1920 turned around quickly. When the British government restrained itself, the depression turned around quickly. But when FDR raised taxes, increased burdensome regulations, and sued people for conducting business the government prolonged the depression and made it into a Great Depression. Government was the problem.
YOU SEEM TO LIVE IN COMPLETE FANTASY. THE DEAL HELPED THE ECONOMY GREATLY, AND THE DEPRESSION OF 1937 WAS NOT AT ALL AS BAD AS IT WAS WHEN HOOVER WAS PRESIDENT. BRITAIN ALSO WASN'T A MAJOR RECOVERY FOR AMERICA EITHER, AS THEIR ECONOMY WAS MUCH SMALLER AND WEAKER. By 1939, THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS HAD FORGOTTEN THE 1937 DEPRESSION AND ROOSEVELT WAS EASILY ELECTED TO A THIRD TERM, BY A LANDSLIDE, THE NEXT YEAR. YOU NEED TO STOP SUCKING HANNITY'S DICK AND GROW UP
The New Deal worsened the economy, raising taxes, restricting the rights of producers, and compelling producers to stop producing. Only freedom can allow an economy to recover. FDR's coercion and enslavement of the American economy only made things worse and caused a minor recession to deepen and extend to a decade long Depression.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Do you not read reliable sources, DUMB-ASS.? Many educational textbooks have stated that the unemployment rate had reached at least 25% nationwide when Hoover's term ended. Why do think Roosevelt won the 1936 election with at 523:8 electoral ratio? Roosevelt greatly brought the economy to a significant recovery, and did not enslave any businessperson by blocking their greed from spreading. After all, as even the Bible states, the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.
Hoover made the recession worse by being too interventionist. FDR ran against government spending (the popular position) and then betrayed his supposed position by spending even more freely than what he had criticized.
FDR won by intimidating opponents and implementing a corrupt spoils system that plundered the economy rather than allowing the economy to recover. FDR never allowed the economy to recover, which is why the recession continued for the entire span of his tyranny (presidency).
What many people neglect is the New Deal actually started under HOOVER. it was HOOVER'S IDEA. FDR's chief consultant to drafting the first so-called "OFFICIAL" New Deal was, you guessed it, Herbert Hoover. Of course, the depression only deepened under Hoover's New Deal and interventionist policies. FDR was lucky to have been elected when the worst had already come, however he kept the nation mired in depression until he took us to war in Germany.
My main concern here, as somebody who wants to believe that the New Deal was a failure, is that the graph shown in the film, (2:42 minutes in) shows that unemployment clearly did fall between 1932 and 1937, during Roosevelt's first term, and following the so called First New Deal. This seems to contradict the thesis here, so what is the explanation, both for this, and for the massive rise in unemployment after 1937?
There's more to gauging the health of an economy than the unemployment rate. For example, in the 90's Japan was in a similiar situation we are today. So, to stimulate growth, it poured billions into construction projects - a gold course with 3 members, a billion dollar bridge used by only 12 people. Stuff like that. But you know what? Unemployment went down. Now, are you telling me spending money on things no one uses just to create jobs is a worthwhile expenditure of those resources?
Also, if you look at that graph again, you'll see unemployment doubled between 1937 and 1938? You can't point at the drop without pointing out the sudden jump in one year. Also, if you listen to the speaker, he's pointing out that the unemployment rates averaged between 15%-18% in the 30's. You enter the 30's near 20% unemployment, you exit the 30's near 20% unemployment. Where's the improvement exactly?
I agree - the US left the 30s with unemployment just as high as when it entered the thirties. However, Roosevelt was not president throughout the 30s. He was president from 1933, at which point unemployment started falling. I do not necessarily credit him with this, of course: The WPA was not started until '35 at which point unemployment had already fallen by almost half of the amount it was to fall. I also accept that the policies of the thirties may have cause unemployment to rise again.
Yes, unemployment spiked and Gross Domestic Product dropped in 1937 - WHEN ROOSEVELT DRASTICALLY CUT SPENDING AND BALANCED THE BUDGET, ABANDONING MANY NEW DEAL PROGRAMS. Between 1933 and 1941, Gross Domestic Product rose 90 percent - better than 10 percent a year. Unemployment dropped from 25 percent to 10 percent. You can't just make up your own facts. Almost all economists agree the New Deal programs were a success.
Oh, gee, there's consensus! Then it must be truth! Well, let's start rounding up the colored folk, and the retards, and the other undesirable breeding stock and kill them off because, well, they're just better off. What? Don't believe me? There's scientific consensus. Even Jesus would support eugenics!
Please. Grow up. Agreement does not equal fact - which you seem to think it does.
I'm not saying consensus equals fact. I'm saying I'll listen to a consensus of economists - who've spent their lives studying this subject, before I listen to some tool on the Internet. And what the hell are you blathering about eugenics for? Are you retarded and afraid we're going to kill you off? If so, don't display your retardedness for everyone to see.
Man you're dense. Do I need to spell it out for you with crayons? I probably should because it seems you're not allowed to touch permanent markers.
I'm "blathering about eugenics" because, if you know anything about history, there was a scientific consensus on the benefits of it. It gained the support of Presidents, politicians, and more for the first half of the 20th Century.
The point being, consensus of people "who've spent their lives studying" a subject sometimes mean jack.
So, you're saying desirable traits can't be made more prominent and undesirable traits reduced in a population through selective breeding? Don't tell the cattle industry!
The problem with eugenics is not that it's not true - it's that it is unethical, and often brutal in practice.
And even if your example was correct, naming one theory where there was a consensus that proved to be untrue (which you didn't even do) is a not a way to prove a point because, of course, I could counter by naming 99 theories where the consensus proved to be true - thus showing that you have a 1 percent chance of being right.
But I guess a 1 percent chance of being right is pretty good for you.
I'd say talking to you is like talking to a wall, but a wall serves a structural purpose. Why don't you just head on over to the DailyKos, bang your chest with the other baboons, and let them all know just how smart and witty you are. Leave the adults to actual intelligent discussion.
My original point stands. After FDR was elected unemployment dropped 15 percent and gross domestic product expanded 90 percent in the 8 years before Pearl Harbor.
It's the height of stupidity to say the economic policies in place at that time were a failure. It was actually one of the greatest economic expansions in recorded history.
But, like I said, you and other Dittoheads tend to want to make up your own facts to try to make reality fit your preconceptions.
An essential point to make is that unemployment is not the only (or best) economic indicator to study. Of course unemployment went down due to New Deal programs because the federal government spent a massive amount to put people to work! This video makes a weak argument precisely because it fails to indicate the wasted capital, useless projects and misallocation of resources as a result of providing jobs from the public purse.
The only benefit of the New Deal may be that it provided temporary jobs, but was the economy better off in the long run? I argue that it was not. Additionally, this video and subsequent comments have mostly dealt with the pure economic results of the depression programs without a discussion of the ethical dimensions. I think it's more important to stress the precedent set by FDR from which we've inherited a government largely financed by deficit spending and permanent military Keynesianism.
Sir, HOOVER LEANED LAISSEZ-FAIRE THOUGHOUT HIS PRESIDENCY. Through Volunteerism, HE EXPRESSED THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH BANK ISSUES
I think you don't understand the meaning of laissez-faire. Some dictionaries define it as a system in which the state intervenes as little as possible in the direction of economic affairs. Another definition you will find is: "An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws."
Which basically means enforcing contracts and prosecuting fraud.
"Sir, HOOVER LEANED LAISSEZ-FAIRE THOUGHOUT HIS PRESIDENCY."
Incorrect. This is not a matter of perspective or ideology. This is a matter of historical fact. Hoover implemented the Emergency Relief and Reconstruction Act, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, and the Federal Home Loan Bank Act. His policies of massive public work programs (such as the Hoover Dam), huge trade barriers, agricultural subsidies, and Federal involvement in lending practices, were all very "progressive".
Nope, THOSE WERE EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAMS THAT HE REGULATED DURING THE BAD ECONOMIC CRISIS. Before the crisis, HE WAS AN OUTSPOKEN ADVOCATE FOR VOLUNTEERISM AND LESS GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. Even during the Great Depression, HE FEARED GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION WOULD HAVE BEEN TO RISKY Yes, HE DID ADVOCATE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF LAISSEZ FAIRE POLICIES AND DIDN'T DO AS MUCH AS ROOSVELT TO HELP. THESE ARE THE HISTORICAL FACTS. EXCEPT REALITY, YOU STUPID JACKASS. And no, I'M NOT A SOCIALIST
"Nope, THOSE WERE EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAMS THAT HE REGULATED DURING THE BAD ECONOMIC CRISIS."
He enacted these policies during the economic crisis in an attempt to halt the downward spiral.. I don't know how you can construe these policies as being "Laissez Faire". They are decisively progressive. But even ignoring the overwhelming policy evidence that he was not "Laissez Faire", as Commerce Secretary he was very pro-regulation. He was a registered member of Teddy's "Progressive Party" in 1912
"Hoover entered office with a plan for reform of the nation's regulatory system. A dedicated Progressive and Reformer, Hoover saw the presidency as a vehicle for improving the conditions of all Americans by regulation and by encouraging volunteerism. Long before he entered politics he denounced laissez-faire thinking. As Commerce Secretary he had taken an active pro-regulation stance. As President, he helped push tariff and farm subsidy bills through Congress."
Wikipedia preaches a lot of shit at times. Read the World Almanac 2008. In his small biography section, IT SAID HE WAS NOT MORE MUCH GOVERNMENT REGULATION DURING THE DEPRESSION
This doesn't make any grammatical sense, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to communicate here, but if you're trying to say that Hoover's response to the beginnings of the Great Depression was "laissez faire", that's simply not close to historically accurate. As I said, Hoover enacted public work programs, high tariffs, and agricultural subsidies. There is no ambiguity here. This legislation is less than a century old and well documented. It's not like we're uncovering ancient ruins.
The basic problem is that both social spending and corporate bailouts harm the economy more than help it. Corporate greed spins out of control more as a result of collusion with government. Get rid of the collusion. Get rid of the Fed, which is at the heart of government/corporate collusion and socials programs won't even be necessary. Freedom works.
No amount of fearmongering about social programs can cover up the massive and unquestionable FAILURE of corporate capitalism or the clear successes of past programs like the GI Bill. Faith in mythical "market forces" is nothing but more of the same cliched sloganeering is a hollow excuse for ongoing and shameless corporate and individual GREED - the central cause to our current crisis. It's time to stop drinking the Corporate Koolaid.
And that led him to infer an argument from the professor that all government action during the New Deal was bad. No one can explain how an act of government implemented over that much time, by a president who served for 12 years, failed in 4 minutes and 6 second. The failing of one program (piece) does not infer the failing of the whole
The argument could hold water if it did not refer to one specific program. Out of the multitude of programs that came out of the New Deal, this professor chose one program that failed. Obviously it is never a good idea to provoke monopoly. The program that was vetted by the professor does not resemble any program in Obama's stimulus package. The reporter took the professor's argument and applied it wildly out of context.
The more debt our country takes on, the lower the value of the dollar becomes. The inverse effect is inflation. Government is what got us in to this mess,and it sure as hell won't be able to get us out of it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Depression, which arose out of the same failed Republican policies of tax breaks for the rich, lack of regulation, and contempt for the American worker has been repeated over the last 3 decades (culminating in unfettered conservatism run amok under Bush) which is why the market tanked & why Obama won in a landslide. FDR's success with the New Deal is why he won 4 terms & would have won more had he lived. Conservatism was proven by the WS bailout to be nothing short of a catastrophic failure.
Spoken like a true liberal who is completely unaware of the high unemployment rates and low GDP in the 30s. The GDP didn't reach 1928 levels until about 1940. Unemployment actually went up under FDR and didn't dip below 10% until '41-'42. The war saved us.
The depression was the result of failed Republican policies such as trade tariffs, increasing the tax rate for the top bracket from 28% to 63%, the use of bailout in the later part of 1929, and failing to loosen the money supply.
What are you reading from the Democratic talking points for the past 80 years? Get some fresh ideas, or better yet, come up with some of your own ideas1! Jeesh
No, the democratic line was that the Republicans caused the depression by not having enough regulation, and allowing the free market to run wild. I am arguing that the Republicans had intervened in the economy through tariffs, progressive income tax, and bailouts which caused a recession which would become the great depression under FDR.
I'm not saying that at all. What we need is long term cuts in government spending, real cuts in government spending so that long term taxes, the taxes that have to charged are lower, not tax cuats to stimulate the economy.
Hah, good for society...more like good way to waste money, Wasting someones elses money is alot easier then your own. And thats what happens, not to mention its like taking blood from one arm and inject it in the other...while spilling blood on the floor.
We are not wasting someones else money. Because he don't get it. Sweden, Norway and Denmark is doing very well with this.
It just does not make any sense that somebody deserves to make more then 1 mio dollar a year. He can't spread the money so it will not be invested in the economy but in bubbles.
We have to reduce the total amount of money becuase the current way to produce money out of nothing is the problem (Fed).
The high taxes have recently made 150,000 out of 600,000 people in Gothenburg unemployed cause Volvo just cant keep up with the high costs. The government refuses to bail them outSo should they raise taxes? Or Cut taxes to help them out? Studying economics will tell you one thing, Raising taxes only makes things more expensive, decreasing the standard of living.
You saying that that one million wont be spent? It would create more jobs. If someone affords to have maids or someone cut your lawn, doesnt that even create jobs? How come made up money by the fed, that will inflate the society woork,but earned cash wont have a trickledown effect?
It works in the Scandinavian countries? They are addicted to taxes, they are addicted to a policy that is meant for short term. Like heroin, they believe they need it to build the society, while Sweden was the #3 richest countries in 1970s, after raising their taxes to a record of 102%, it keeps going down hill. Right now the total tax is 51%, and they want to raise more and more. They will always claim they need more taxes, its never enough.
Investing is a good thing. And it does trickle down. Investment means putting money into a company, the company then needs to ensure a profit, for it to grow, since the company its funded it is now able to buy raw materials, continue production and further sell their product. I do not see how that is not trickling down
When we start taxing everyone, including rich...they become defensive and save more and more. Which causes less investments, since its considered "wrong"
Poor people are no longer able to invest as so much money is taxed, inflated, and even purchases are more costly due to regulations, therefore instead of being able to invest, they need to be defensive and spend on necessary things...thats the only thing that they can do...Rich people can handle more taxes, but the less investments and spending means less for the poor.
Even Keynes was critical of the New Deal. He said that the New Deal would not deal with long term issues, like that gigantic unemployment rate that went on for years after the New Deal.
I didn't read any of the other posts, but, anyone who claims that Most Economists aren't in agreement that FDR's New deal worked IS A TOTAL LIAR! FDR Suceeded , only republican revisionists want you to think otherwise.
Great commentary coming from a guy whose favorite videos are "Lesbian High School Girls" and Big Foot. The depression ended because of WWII not because of the New Deal. Put down the porn and Big Foot mags and pick up a history book, you might actually learn something.
Hey, those are grown women, and that Bigfoot Video is a hysterically funny joke. But just like a Republican to worry about BJs and yell about fake WMDS. Go find an economist not in Rupert Murdoch's employ who agrees with you. Historically they don't, revisionist.
You need to study the Austrian school economists like Von Mises, Hayek and Rothbard. They proved that America's Great Depression was caused and prolonged by government intervention. In effect the Great Depression didn't really end in that things returned to normal. What actually happened was a total transformation of our economic structure. We went from Agri-Industrial to Cold War economy. Things have never been the same.
Even ignoring the factual errors and poor research behind this video...who said the new deal was great because it ended the depression? It reversed the flow of wealth and put in place programs for those who were not wealthy. For a brief moment in American history the government actually helped its citizens instead of legislating against them as it has since Reagan.
Stealth this is how America began it's downfall. They lied to Americans with "Trickle down economics" Told them it is great for you if the rich get richer. Now the bitter truth is coming out, & Americans see that they were swindled by Wall street & the lying liars who pulled the rug out from the Average American leaveing them homeless, jobless and penny less, yet people still cling to the propaganda that the New Deal did not work.
I'm not sure about the TVA but the WPA was a good thing for Montana which needed the dams and roads which came as a result. I think America still needs infrastructure, infrastructure will and such investment even a little pork will pay off, but the government should take do such investments to take advantage of low prices and unemployment not to correct unemployment.
The New Deal didn't build factories. It made work for unemployed men. In my town, they had men build roads with hand laid bricks...not because it was the smart thing to do. They did it to keep men busy. That's unproductive work and that provided nothing for the war effort.
Hoover dam isn't a factory but it basicaly allowed Las Vegas as we know it to come into existance providing hundreds of thousands of jobs, providing water for farmland. Factories are not the only vestige of capital.
So did Fort Peck dam, but it is likely these projects would have gone through in a booming economy as the Coollige Dam on the Coumbia River was in the 1920's.
Here is the economic fact if you want to pull your head out of the collective consevative ass. The New Deal worked, but they cut back on it, then the biggest public works project came about, America involvement in WW2 which gave the "Political will" to spend whatever it took to win, After war the enemies manufacturing infrastructure & manpower was wiped out, giving America the ability to lead the world in manufacturing & credit, not debtor nation which it is NOW. You know this as well as I do.
Once Congress gave $700 billion to the banks, besides $150 billion for PORK, the game was up, the Auto boys wanted a cut, for the union, and got it, and will be back for more, the States and Cities want some, Nobama will give it to them, even the realtors want a cut, and will get it, the line will be long. The taxpayers will foot the bill, after a tax hike. Someone has to pay and the gov. has only our money. American taxpayers, we have been FUCKED, but Nobama will say it is for our own good.
Maybe it's just me ... but this video's asking us to follow a mindset based on a brief interview with a single professor, who co-authored a single paper on the subject four years ago. In contrast, this same video includes snippets of a president-elect, a book author, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and others.
-NOT- the way to make a winning case, regardless of where the facts lay. This is, in effect, a 4-minute waste of my time that, if anything, makes me more skeptical of this viewpoint.
This is just the classic Monetarism (Friedman) vs. Keynesian Economic debate. Nothing new. Both sides already knew all this. And unemployment was in 30% in the depression, we're no where near that. This isn't even as bad as the 70s stagflation (which Keynsian Theory fails to explain). The sky isn't falling, we dont need to waste anymore of other people's money on crappy inefficient government spending.
Milfhunter, the real unemployment figure is double what the goverment puts out, it really is closer to 15%. Also if you take into account the number of people who are on Goverment Disability Benefits which average 25% then we are now over Depression unemployment and it is going to get worse when retail chains bankrupt after a miserble Christmas sales. Unemployment could get worse then the depression.
You are correct about the Monetarism v Keynesian, but the situation has gone to far to help.
Dont intervene and let us plummet towards a new dark age like that in 1345-1348 when the Lombard Banking system in europe collapsed? I think its obvious that the Federal Reserve(the central banking system itself) has FAILED EPICALLY. So the sollution is NOT let it enslave us all. Attempting to pay 680 trillion is not only impossible, its suicidal. The government HAS to intervene, and shut these jokers down.
BIG surprise you have central banking economists agreeing with you. Probably thinks bailing out financial sector thats being sucked up by the derivatives market is a good idea. If you do not intervene, that means the corporations have to pay the $680 trillion USD in derivative contracts. The worlds combined GDP last year was like 54 trillion USD.
FDR was no Keynesian. Hitler was a Keynesian. Slave labor, im sorry, minimum wage, is Keynesian. "Loosening the money" to the financial sectors and letting corporations lay people off, to either higher new employees at a lower wage, or outsource the job overseas to sweat shops is Keynesian. Building infrastucture, investing in the Physical economy, to raise the productive means of a country, now thats 100% American Economics. Thats Lincoln, thats Hamilton, thats FDR.
Actually that is incorrect, if you look at the Depression statistics the New Deal was working until 37-38 when Gov funding was cut back & unemployment went back up in 38. When WW2 started there was Political will to spend whatever it took to win, thus ending the Depression.
This may not work now because of differnt situation pertaining to energy & liquid fuels, overpopulation & no family farms, so we are screwed no matter how you look at it.
Wrong. If Hoover and FDR had simply stayed out, the economy would have fixed itself much sooner. That's what economies do: they have their peaks and valleys. If the gov't stays out this time (which I doubt they will, given Odumbo's statist views), the oncoming depression will eventually be done and over with.
dudemanbearpig, apt name. You are not takeing into account these difference, US was not at war during the Depressin, the US was NOT in debt, The US was Oil exporter not importer,The US still family farms, now mostly coporate farms, Hell most of our food come across the world. The US was still manufacturing, that is over now.
People like you is the reason why the US is totaly screwed, you look to blame Obama who hasn't done a damn thing yet and not look at your own damn self.
You don't know a damn thing about economics do you? It was an unregulated shadow banking system that imploded. The securitization of mortage backed securites,credit cards, student loans, car loan, the creation of deratives, CDS Credit Default Swaps in an unregulated banking system has imploded causing a global credit crisis, also leaving the US as the biggest debtor nation in the world, Hey asshole the Japs own us, What free market are you talking about?
And when they start swearing, you know you've driven them into an uncontrollable rage. Nice knowing you. "Unregulated banking system?" You crack me up.
dudemanbearpig, your ignorance belies your age. The Unregulated Shadow Banking System is not something I made up. Check the best economist on this Nouriel Roubini Professor of Economics New Your Univiersity or just simply look it up on YouTube.
I am so glad your 21, cause you will experience a lifetime of debt, poverty and overwhelming taxes to pay the trillions that have been racked up by the Goverment and the bailouts to the banks. I feel sorry for the young but make an exception for you.
I dont know man, Fannie and Freddie were the MOST regulated firms. Subprime lending was encouraged by congress (and made possible by Greenspan, yes.) But still, i think all would be fine if they could value these MBS for what they're worth in the future. I mean the houses aren't worthless. BUT, just bc no one will buy them and a little thing called "mark-to-market" they have to value all the homes at zero. You said it yourself, "what free market?" -so how can the free market be to blame?
What is to blame are stupid greedy people, everybody who bought 5 houses to flip, everybody, who took out 2nd mortages thinking their house's were atm's, everybody who invested in securities they didn't understand, everybody who bought giant SUV's and didn't give a damn about the earth or the next generation is at fault.
A regulated free market can work, this monstroity has blown up in our faces, most people do not understand why,so they start pointing their fingers. It is going to get worse.
Regulated-Markets, that is Social Democracies, can work in a homogenous society. Like Norway, Sweden and so forth bc they all roughly want the same thing. But in a heterogeneous society (U.S.) the more you regulate, the more people are discriminated against. Also, Social Democracies have their own set problems. It is not a fix all system. Moreover, take Iceland (who recently crashed, yes) but unitl then, and even now they have the HIGHEST STANDARD of LIVING in the WORLD. They can thank Milton.
I don't thin the problem amounts to what economic system works & what doesn't. There are other problems, like too many people in the world,6.5 billion, 300 million in the US in a country that has lost 90% of family farms, what is left is disel powered Corporate farms that ship food on trucks 1500 miles or even food shipped overseas. What do yo do when 35 million people become unemployed? What do you do when credit is totaly frozen, nobody is lending anybody anything except the Fed.
But: "if you took the entire world population and put it in Texas. It (texas) still wouldn't have a greater population density than New York City does now." -John Stossel
...even still, what do we do about a problem like this? i wouldn't want to live in a place where somebody tells me how many kids to have. im not saying youre saying this, just pointing out that there are very very tricky issues, that, i believe, are beyond the gov's ability to solve.
Milf, I totaly agree, I think it is now beyond Goverment's capability to fix it. Obama will try what he can, but their is no simple answer, The US is bankrupt, what kind of magic is there out there to fix it? None. As Gerald Celente says the US is going to be the first "undeveloped" nation. I take that as meaning unraveling into possibly third world status, ie the fall of the Roman Empire.
You worry about how many kids your allowed to have when what you should worry about is can I feed them?
If it's as bad, why make another deal?
felpaluche 1 month ago
"Government should have loosened the money supply"
The government did loosen the money supply and it did nothing. Banks kept dropping like flies and people kept losing their savings.
I am sure Building Grand Coulee Dam and developing the Tennessee Valley prolonged the depression by seven years.
FDR's complaint was that nobody had any solutions other than lending more money. If nobody has jobs, how would they borrow?
jizzmonger 1 year ago
The depression started because the Federal Reserve let there be 33% unemployment, and Hoover instituted tariffs and a minimum wage. Another problem was that a lot of states didn't let banks move outside of state lines, so you had thousands of little banks, as opposed to ten big banks in Canada. Which is why Canada didn't have a bank crisis. The new deal only worsened the depression.
whitesox889 1 year ago
obama is the devil and shall not be re elected if he is america shall fall in to the hands of the enemy
user467 1 year ago
the Emporer has No Clothes.
you Lefties can give up on Marxist Hope and Change.
catndryer 2 years ago
I believe I can offer a soundbite for why the New Deal prevented recovery and prolonged recession: Demand Side economics attempts to increase demand while decreasing the means of supply.
BAsically, welfare economics reduces the need of the poor to work, decreases the means of the rich to provide work (especially with minimum wage regulation etc) and keeps job-seekers and jobs quite separate.
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
Obongo: from crack deal to New Deal.
stevencool104 2 years ago
Paul Krugman is an absolute shill block-head. Why would any sane person want his opinion when this Keynesian tripe has consistently proved to be a joke? Obama's driving the whole country into the ground where it's going to metamorphose into a stew of poverty, unemployment, war & class division.
Oh well, as Hitler said: "if the sheep are too stupid to realise they are being lead to the slaughter house, then let them be slaughtered". This video will hopefully save a couple of people, so ty.
karlkarlkarl1234 2 years ago
Libertarians are anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Shanbo26 2 years ago
Libertarians are literally children
chobicus 2 years ago
Can you explain how it is that whenever your economists make a forecast usually the exact opposite of whatever they say is going to happen actually happens? I don't know if you were watching CNN in 2006 when I was hearing what great shape the housing industry is in, or in 2008 when I was hearing how we might experience just a "minor slowdown", but Keynesians are consistently wrong. My question is, how do you keep your faith amidst all these utter failures?
IVoteNone 2 years ago
Can you explain how the gold standard is any more complex than saying "Wow gold is shiny as HELL I bet this has an objective value" also can you explain why Ron Paul has links to gold giant GoldMan Sacks
chobicus 2 years ago
It doesn't matter if a monetary standard is based in gold or petrified mammoth turds, but a rational monetary policy must limit the supply of money a government is able to create, and the only way to do that is to tie the creation of money to the amount of any finite and divisible thing. Gold is a finite soft metal and easily divisible, making it a very practical decision. The reasons why we don't have a gold standard right now are political and have nothing to do with economics.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
Can you answer my question? Do you not believe that consistent wrongness constitutes rational grounds for not listening to someone? The Keynesian methodology for forecasting economic events has been totally discredited by the facts of reality on numerous occasions. If a weatherman says "tomorrow will be sunny" and tomorrow comes a hurricane, are you going to listen to that weatherman anymore? Why not listen to people who are right?
IVoteNone 2 years ago
END THE FED.
GodBlesstheWorld2008 2 years ago
FIX THE MONEY PROBLEM.
GodBlesstheWorld2008 2 years ago
FDR WAS A COMMIE...
GodBlesstheWorld2008 2 years ago
The New Deal lengthened the Depression by seven years? Let's see...GDP had recovered by 1936...so that means that the Depression would have ended before it started! Cool!
Or, if you're referring to unemployment, well unemployment had completely recovered by 1942, so that means without the new deal, it would have recovered by 1935. So you're telling us, it would have recovered in two years after heading into the toilet for four? Yeah, right.
I smell bullshit.
Shanbo26 2 years ago
Bring back the Colonial Scrip, Greenbacks, or reenact Executive Order 11110... Get rid of the International Bankers NOW. End the Fed.
GodBlesstheWorld2008 2 years ago
Maybe he should be channeling Kennedy and Lincoln... Andrew Jackson was the ONLY prez to ever pay off the national debt... He did so by routing out the banksters who were charging us INTEREST and stealing our labor and productivity.... Obama is laughable. He is a bankster stooge.
GodBlesstheWorld2008 2 years ago
Roosevelt's New Deal was just sweeping the real problem under the carpet and that was and IS the controllers of our money supply.... Solve this and we will have NO national debt....
GodBlesstheWorld2008 2 years ago
Who started the New Deal?
Search for "The Hoover New Deal of 1932" on the site for the Mises Institute.
mongoose704 2 years ago
Yeah FDR, heh! Japan bombs Pearl Harbor and we declare war on, and invade....GERMANY!
Al Qaeda knocks the towers down and Bush invades....IRAQ!
Get a new hero Obama because yours was worse than Bush ever was.
mongoose704 2 years ago
Germany was Japan's stated ally, moron. You couldn't declare war on one without the other. Learn some history, retard.
Shanbo26 2 years ago
Here's the score on some of the remaining New Deal policies and acts today.
Social Security: Utter failure. It's dead, bankrupt, put a fork in it, it's done.
Fannie Mae: Are you fucking kidding me have you read the papers? They were an integral cause of the current global economic crash.
SEC? Good lord that's a belly acher, LOL! How many failures to act upon securities fraud just this decade? Countless!
The New Deal prolonged the depression by 9 years.
mongoose704 2 years ago
I'm so glad I didn't vote for him. He's an arrogant self centered ass.
Northwest57 2 years ago
I don't recall anyone actually voting for Barry Soetoro.
herbs814 2 years ago
B.S. You Republican shits fail to mention the fact that The Great Depression was worse between the years 1930 and 1933. The 1937-1938 Depression was not nearly as bad as the phase that occured under Herbert Hoover's time in office. My grandparents survived because of Roosevelt. Even Ronald Reagan praised Roosevelt as a strong leader AFTER HE BECAME PRESIDENT
hulkyone 2 years ago
Why do you use the word "shit" so much? Didn't all those years in school help you increase your vocabulary?
egil333 2 years ago
The Depression lasted until 1943? How can a depression end in the middle of a war, when so many men who would otherwise have been producing useful things were instead under arms, and when 40% of the economy was dedicated to the war? And this is what "most estimates" conclude? Does anyone else find this nonsensical?
RMMHS4RP 2 years ago
You may notice a chart of the US unemployment rate in this video. The spike between July 1937 and June 1938 was a result of an easing back on the employment programs. The chart shows that the unemployment rate dropped during World War II, but this is arguably the largest government program in history, a vast international government program involving the US, the Soviet Union and the British Commonwealth to push back the Nazi regime, and destroy the power of Hitler.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
Charming!
Austrians?! as if!
get a job!.....oh that's right....there aren't any?!
herrprofs 2 years ago
Economist Roger W. Garrison says that the bust of The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve -- they held interest rates below the natural rate of interest during the 1920's, creating an unsustainable credit expansion boom.
Does that sound familiar?
Professor Garrison has an illuminating lecture titled "The Great Depression" that you can listen to online.
learninglemur 2 years ago
That's the basis for the Austrian Business Cycle.
Ooftyman 2 years ago
Sorry, but that theory is not as widely accepted as the Keynes theory. The structure of the Austrian business cycle was different than the American laissez-faire system at the time. PARTISAN-SHITS LIKE YOU NEED TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT HERBERT HOOVER LED AMERICA TO ALMOST-CERTAIN RUIN
hulkyone 2 years ago
How did Hoover ruin the country? He was only President for several months before the stock market tanked. Oh and you using using caps lock to try to back up your "statement" further shows your incompetence and lack of intelligence.
bittergunowner12 2 years ago
Stupid jackass, I WAS A TOP STUDENT THROUGHOUT MY YEARS IN PUBLIC SCHOOL. I AM ONLY CAPITALIZING THE WORD THAT DISCUSS MY MAIN ARGUMENTS. IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN USING A DAMN HIGHLIGHTER. AFTER THE STOCK MARKET CRASHED, HOOVER MADE IT WORSE. YOU HAVE THE IQ OF A SOAP-DISH
hulkyone 2 years ago
Public school? That would explain the brainwashing in favor of Democrats and against Republicans and freedom and common sense.
herbs814 2 years ago
Hoover led America to ruin by becoming too much like Democrats.
herbs814 2 years ago
You are so wrong. Hoover was a staunch laissez-faire activist. He carried the policy to the end of his term
hulkyone 2 years ago
Hoover worsened the economy by being entirely too interventionist. Laissez-faire would have ended the depression much more quickly and fairly.
herbs814 2 years ago
Nope, Hoover worsened the economy by giving the wealthy a good share of taxpayer benefits. The stock market crashed, and Hoover's laissez faire policies made the economy worse. I will not lie, Hoover at first opposed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. He passed it in 1930, but it gave the wealthy a far better bargain than it did for the middle class. The tariff was a pro-business policy
hulkyone 2 years ago
You just contradicted yourself, you simpleton. If Hoover really did "give the wealthy a good share of taxpayer benefits" than by definition this is NOT a laissez-faire policy at all. And a tariff is NOT a laissez-faire policy. IF Hoover had been using a laissez-faire policy, then the recession would have resolved much more quickly. Government intervention always prolongs the pain.
herbs814 2 years ago
Roosevelt's depression between 1937 and 1938 was not as bad as the one Herbert Hoover gave America. IT'S JUST THE FACTS
hulkyone 2 years ago
Wait a minute, wasn't Hoover a LIBERAL Republican? What facts do you have to back up your claims, in fact its well documented that 1937 was the worst year of the Depression.
bittergunowner12 2 years ago
Stupid jackass, HOOVER WAS A LAISSEZ-FAIRE CONSERVATIVE. HIS SMOOT HAWLEY TARIFF ACT MADE THE ECONOMY WORSE. IT'S WELL DOCUMENTED THAT 1932 WAS WORSE YEAR OF THE DEPRESSION AS WELL. GROW A BRAIN
hulkyone 2 years ago
You are incredibly misinformed. Hoover intervened in the economy by raising taxes and tariffs. (High tariffs are just another left-wing way to interfere with business and trade). This made the economy worse and it gave FDR a precedent to intervene in the economy himself. FDR's taxes, regulations, politically-guided spending, and persecution of American businessmen made a minor slowdown into The Great Depression.
Laissez-faire brought the US out of the Depression of 1920.
herbs814 2 years ago
Wrong, JACKASS. Hoover's Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was an example of pro-big business politics, AND HE DIDN'T PASS IT UNTIL AFTER THE STOCK MARKET CRASHED. The tariff hurt the middle class a hell of a lot more than did the wealthy. The fact is: Hoover's laissez-faire policies caused the market to crash in 1929, AND HE ONLY PUT SALT ON THE MASSIVE WOUND WITH THE ACT. Roosevelt didn't persecute businessmen, BUT HE DID PISS THEM OFF BY BLOCKING THEIR GREED FROM SPREADING
hulkyone 2 years ago
Ha! Read FDR's criticism of Hoover leading up to the 1932 election. He called Hoover's administration the most spendthrift in history and resolved to rollback federal government intervention. The Democrat Party platform for that year is also worth a read. Of course FDR did everything he accused Hoover of doing and to a much greater extent, completely counter to his party's platform that he ran on. Oh, and laissez-faire and conservative are not synonymous. Both major parties are Keynesian.
th3lonius 2 years ago
Laissez-Faire and Keynesian policies ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Roosevelt won in 1932 because the major shit-hole the country was in, NOT BECAUSE HE PERSUADED PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR HIM THROUGH THE USE OF NEGATIVE ATTACKS. YOU HAVE THE IQ OF A JACKASS
hulkyone 2 years ago
"Laissez-Faire and Keynesian policies ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT."
Uh.. no shit? Clearly you misunderstand me. Hoover is often cited in textbooks, and by the uninformed at large, as a conservative and therefore he is also "laissez-faire." He clearly wasn't "laissez-faire" so I am merely highlighting a common fallacy. In addition, and as a separate comment, I stated that both parties are basically Keynesian.
And I never stated or insinuated that Roosevelt won by attacking Hoover's policies.
th3lonius 2 years ago
No, HOOVER WAS VERY MUCH LAISSEZ-FAIRE. HE SUPPORTED NOT GETTING THE GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN COMMERCE TRADING; WHICH IS THE PRINCIPAL OF LAISSEZ-FAIRE BELIEFS. This caused the 1929 crash, AND HOOVER ONLY ACTED WHEN HE HAD NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO DO SO. The only act he even passed to help relieve the depression WAS THE SMOOT-HAWLEY TARIFF Act HE DID NOTHING ELSE. Keynesian is completely different from Laissez-Faire too. It SUPPORTS MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION OVER BANKS AND COMMERCE.
hulkyone 2 years ago
"This caused the 1929 crash"?
Are you honestly suggesting that the failure of the executive to interfere with market forces caused the stock market crash?
And once more you suggest that I believe Keynesianism and "laissez-faire" are similar. I'm not sure how you've derived that notion, but obviously the two are very different; though perhaps you have a divergent notion of these differences. Keynesian economics principally enables & encourages massive deficit spending and therefore militarism.
th3lonius 2 years ago
What I was obviously conveying is that FDR's criticism of Hoover is one piece of evidence that shows he was as much of a statist as FDR. Merely attempting to debunk the myth of Hoover as a laissez-faire capitalist that you want to perpetuate. If FDR, the great executive interventionist of the 20th century, criticized his predecessor consistently for running up massive deficits and generally intervening in the economy unnecessarily, how can you refer to Hoover's policies as "laissez-faire?"
th3lonius 2 years ago
Sir, Hoover opposed government involvement in farm commodities and did not believe the government should have much involvement in business expansion. HE WAS ONLY CONCERNED WITH HELPING AMERICANS NOT ACQUIRE STOCKS FROM BANK LOANS. HE BELIEVED THAT PROSPERITY CAME THROUGH BUSINESS CEOs AND BUYING STOCKS FROM WAGES. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS BELIEF AND KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS.
hulkyone 2 years ago
Do you realize that the Cobert Report is a satire comedy show and that he is poking fun the ignorance of this kind of thinking?
mfirmes 2 years ago
"How many free market economists does it take to change a light bulb?"
A: "None." "You just sit in the dark and wait for the invisible hand to do it."
In the throws of the Great Depression...how long could the American state...sit in the dark and wait for something to happen?! The success of the New Deal is not to be measured strictly in economic terms....but in the maintainance of Political Stability and the fact that we didn't follow the examples of Germany and or the Soviet Union.
herrprofs 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
DUMB. ASS.
Ooftyman 2 years ago
Comment removed
dhLord64 2 years ago
This short-run reality overwhelms any self-equilibrating tendencies toward a long-run, steady state of an economy producing along a stable growth path with low unemployment and full capacity utilization.
The "Crankyness" is this neo-classical/austrian approach is the assumption of the efficacious invisible hand to deliver and economy to this long-run position.......which reminds me of the fitting joke:
herrprofs 2 years ago
The labor market of the time was not capable of functioning .....even is the effective wage was zero. As JMK would observe, the collapse of Aggregate Demand had sent an unambiguous signal to employers that existing levels of production and output could not be sold.....thus exacerbating the self reinforcing cycle of job shedding and reduction of output.
herrprofs 2 years ago
As an economist, it is curious indeed that there is an assumption that the "Invisible hand" was capable of equilibrating labor, financial and product markets if only "structural rigidities were removed....in other words....that wages were allowed to fall to their equilibrium level and that the visible hand of the state would not "distort prices" et al.
herrprofs 2 years ago
This is garbage. The economist is indeed a "crank."
herrprofs 2 years ago
How much do you know about the New Deal, economics and American History. I ask because you are able to call someone a crank. I"m not trying to insult, I guess I'm trying to figure out if you just have presuppositions that make you dislike or like certain views, or if you actually know what you're talking about and are able to accurately asses the New Deal's success.
truth101z 2 years ago
That economist is full of shit. That's the same professor who claim the fundamentals of the economy are strong. You have to be kidding me.
Superplatanoman 2 years ago
And for God's sake, the GOP took over in 2000 with a $200 billion a year SURPLUS and screwed up so badly they doubled the national debt. So spare me the lectures. You've lost all credibility.
By the way, Bush's tax cuts were $1.3 trillion - so how is Obama's $500 billion in spending and $300 billion in tax cuts so damn irresponsible. Republicans need to STFU and let the adults run things for a while. The Dems will fix the economy, just like Clinton did when he took over from Bush 1.
rcroteau1 3 years ago
Are you serious? The best thing Clinton did was to ride the trend started by Reagan. And do I need to remind you the country was in a recession when Bubba left office?
And you tell me I can't make up my own facts! Pot meet kettle.
selderane 3 years ago
You are wrong. The recession did not start until March 2001 - you may argue we were on a path to a recession - but you can't just make up your own damn facts. And can I remind YOU that Bush 1 left a recession for the Clinton administration, which actually started during the Bush Administration and during the Clinton presidency we pulled out of it and went from a $370 billion deficit to a $200 billion surplus.
rcroteau1 3 years ago
According to the President of the National Bureau of Economic Research, "It is clear that the revised data have made our original March date for the start of the recession much too late."
But he's probably just a political hack, you know, for having given you your March date in the first place. Do some research please.
selderane 3 years ago
November 26, 2001
This report is also available as a PDF file.
The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession.
rcroteau1 3 years ago
You mean what the Republican controlled Congress did during the 90's? Clinton was too busy getting bjs. I seem to remember him fighting the Republicans tooth and claw when it came to balancing the budget. The New Deal was an utter failure, leaving massive piles of debt and double digit unemployment, it failed, why do you think the economy is tanking now, because of government intervention in the market.
bittergunowner12 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Republican ass-kissers like you MAKE ME LAUGH. BE NEUTRAL FOR A CHANGE, AND MAKE ACCUSATIONS BASED ON PROVEN FACTS
hulkyone 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The New Deal revived the economy and brought America OUT OF THE DEPRESSION. Roosevelt won a record breaking 523:8 elector ratio in 1936 as well. While I do admit the depression was bad, IT WASN'T NEARLY AS BAD AS HOOVER'S. WHEN HOOVER ENDED HIS TERM, UNEMPLOYMENT WAS AT LEAST 25% NATIONWIDE. Also, THE ECONOMY QUICKLY RECOVERED FROM THAT DEPRESSION BY END OF 1939 AS WELL. THERE'S MANY RELIABLE-AS WELL AS NEUTRAL AND NON-PARTISAN- WEBSITES TO BACK MY CLAIM. GO BACK TO SUCKING HANNITY'S DICK
hulkyone 2 years ago
The New Deal prolonged and worsened the depression. The New Deal was the reason the depression became The Great Depression. When the government restrained itself, the depression of 1920 turned around quickly. When the British government restrained itself, the depression turned around quickly. But when FDR raised taxes, increased burdensome regulations, and sued people for conducting business the government prolonged the depression and made it into a Great Depression. Government was the problem.
herbs814 2 years ago 8
YOU SEEM TO LIVE IN COMPLETE FANTASY. THE DEAL HELPED THE ECONOMY GREATLY, AND THE DEPRESSION OF 1937 WAS NOT AT ALL AS BAD AS IT WAS WHEN HOOVER WAS PRESIDENT. BRITAIN ALSO WASN'T A MAJOR RECOVERY FOR AMERICA EITHER, AS THEIR ECONOMY WAS MUCH SMALLER AND WEAKER. By 1939, THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS HAD FORGOTTEN THE 1937 DEPRESSION AND ROOSEVELT WAS EASILY ELECTED TO A THIRD TERM, BY A LANDSLIDE, THE NEXT YEAR. YOU NEED TO STOP SUCKING HANNITY'S DICK AND GROW UP
hulkyone 2 years ago
u r a COMPLETE IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
paulc6433 2 years ago
The New Deal worsened the economy, raising taxes, restricting the rights of producers, and compelling producers to stop producing. Only freedom can allow an economy to recover. FDR's coercion and enslavement of the American economy only made things worse and caused a minor recession to deepen and extend to a decade long Depression.
herbs814 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do you not read reliable sources, DUMB-ASS.? Many educational textbooks have stated that the unemployment rate had reached at least 25% nationwide when Hoover's term ended. Why do think Roosevelt won the 1936 election with at 523:8 electoral ratio? Roosevelt greatly brought the economy to a significant recovery, and did not enslave any businessperson by blocking their greed from spreading. After all, as even the Bible states, the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.
hulkyone 2 years ago
Hoover made the recession worse by being too interventionist. FDR ran against government spending (the popular position) and then betrayed his supposed position by spending even more freely than what he had criticized.
FDR won by intimidating opponents and implementing a corrupt spoils system that plundered the economy rather than allowing the economy to recover. FDR never allowed the economy to recover, which is why the recession continued for the entire span of his tyranny (presidency).
herbs814 2 years ago 2
What many people neglect is the New Deal actually started under HOOVER. it was HOOVER'S IDEA. FDR's chief consultant to drafting the first so-called "OFFICIAL" New Deal was, you guessed it, Herbert Hoover. Of course, the depression only deepened under Hoover's New Deal and interventionist policies. FDR was lucky to have been elected when the worst had already come, however he kept the nation mired in depression until he took us to war in Germany.
mongoose704 2 years ago 4
My main concern here, as somebody who wants to believe that the New Deal was a failure, is that the graph shown in the film, (2:42 minutes in) shows that unemployment clearly did fall between 1932 and 1937, during Roosevelt's first term, and following the so called First New Deal. This seems to contradict the thesis here, so what is the explanation, both for this, and for the massive rise in unemployment after 1937?
RichardAGarner2009 3 years ago
There's more to gauging the health of an economy than the unemployment rate. For example, in the 90's Japan was in a similiar situation we are today. So, to stimulate growth, it poured billions into construction projects - a gold course with 3 members, a billion dollar bridge used by only 12 people. Stuff like that. But you know what? Unemployment went down. Now, are you telling me spending money on things no one uses just to create jobs is a worthwhile expenditure of those resources?
selderane 3 years ago
I agree: GDP did not increase, total real output fell, investment did not recover. But the claims here were about unemployment.
RichardAGarner2009 3 years ago
Also, if you look at that graph again, you'll see unemployment doubled between 1937 and 1938? You can't point at the drop without pointing out the sudden jump in one year. Also, if you listen to the speaker, he's pointing out that the unemployment rates averaged between 15%-18% in the 30's. You enter the 30's near 20% unemployment, you exit the 30's near 20% unemployment. Where's the improvement exactly?
selderane 3 years ago
I agree - the US left the 30s with unemployment just as high as when it entered the thirties. However, Roosevelt was not president throughout the 30s. He was president from 1933, at which point unemployment started falling. I do not necessarily credit him with this, of course: The WPA was not started until '35 at which point unemployment had already fallen by almost half of the amount it was to fall. I also accept that the policies of the thirties may have cause unemployment to rise again.
RichardAGarner2009 3 years ago
Yes, unemployment spiked and Gross Domestic Product dropped in 1937 - WHEN ROOSEVELT DRASTICALLY CUT SPENDING AND BALANCED THE BUDGET, ABANDONING MANY NEW DEAL PROGRAMS. Between 1933 and 1941, Gross Domestic Product rose 90 percent - better than 10 percent a year. Unemployment dropped from 25 percent to 10 percent. You can't just make up your own facts. Almost all economists agree the New Deal programs were a success.
rcroteau1 3 years ago
Oh, gee, there's consensus! Then it must be truth! Well, let's start rounding up the colored folk, and the retards, and the other undesirable breeding stock and kill them off because, well, they're just better off. What? Don't believe me? There's scientific consensus. Even Jesus would support eugenics!
Please. Grow up. Agreement does not equal fact - which you seem to think it does.
selderane 3 years ago
I'm not saying consensus equals fact. I'm saying I'll listen to a consensus of economists - who've spent their lives studying this subject, before I listen to some tool on the Internet. And what the hell are you blathering about eugenics for? Are you retarded and afraid we're going to kill you off? If so, don't display your retardedness for everyone to see.
rcroteau1 3 years ago
Man you're dense. Do I need to spell it out for you with crayons? I probably should because it seems you're not allowed to touch permanent markers.
I'm "blathering about eugenics" because, if you know anything about history, there was a scientific consensus on the benefits of it. It gained the support of Presidents, politicians, and more for the first half of the 20th Century.
The point being, consensus of people "who've spent their lives studying" a subject sometimes mean jack.
selderane 3 years ago
So, you're saying desirable traits can't be made more prominent and undesirable traits reduced in a population through selective breeding? Don't tell the cattle industry!
The problem with eugenics is not that it's not true - it's that it is unethical, and often brutal in practice.
rcroteau1 3 years ago
And even if your example was correct, naming one theory where there was a consensus that proved to be untrue (which you didn't even do) is a not a way to prove a point because, of course, I could counter by naming 99 theories where the consensus proved to be true - thus showing that you have a 1 percent chance of being right.
But I guess a 1 percent chance of being right is pretty good for you.
rcroteau1 3 years ago
I'd say talking to you is like talking to a wall, but a wall serves a structural purpose. Why don't you just head on over to the DailyKos, bang your chest with the other baboons, and let them all know just how smart and witty you are. Leave the adults to actual intelligent discussion.
selderane 3 years ago
Wow, brilliant comeback. When the facts fail you, just go with insults. Go listen to Rush so you can have something new to type tomorrow.
rcroteau1 3 years ago
Like I said, Pot meet Kettle. Thank you for proving my point.
selderane 3 years ago
Comment removed
rcroteau1 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My original point stands. After FDR was elected unemployment dropped 15 percent and gross domestic product expanded 90 percent in the 8 years before Pearl Harbor.
It's the height of stupidity to say the economic policies in place at that time were a failure. It was actually one of the greatest economic expansions in recorded history.
But, like I said, you and other Dittoheads tend to want to make up your own facts to try to make reality fit your preconceptions.
rcroteau1 3 years ago
An essential point to make is that unemployment is not the only (or best) economic indicator to study. Of course unemployment went down due to New Deal programs because the federal government spent a massive amount to put people to work! This video makes a weak argument precisely because it fails to indicate the wasted capital, useless projects and misallocation of resources as a result of providing jobs from the public purse.
th3lonius 2 years ago
The only benefit of the New Deal may be that it provided temporary jobs, but was the economy better off in the long run? I argue that it was not. Additionally, this video and subsequent comments have mostly dealt with the pure economic results of the depression programs without a discussion of the ethical dimensions. I think it's more important to stress the precedent set by FDR from which we've inherited a government largely financed by deficit spending and permanent military Keynesianism.
th3lonius 2 years ago
Sir, HOOVER LEANED LAISSEZ-FAIRE THOUGHOUT HIS PRESIDENCY. Through Volunteerism, HE EXPRESSED THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH BANK ISSUES
hulkyone 2 years ago
I think you don't understand the meaning of laissez-faire. Some dictionaries define it as a system in which the state intervenes as little as possible in the direction of economic affairs. Another definition you will find is: "An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws."
Which basically means enforcing contracts and prosecuting fraud.
th3lonius 2 years ago
"Sir, HOOVER LEANED LAISSEZ-FAIRE THOUGHOUT HIS PRESIDENCY."
Incorrect. This is not a matter of perspective or ideology. This is a matter of historical fact. Hoover implemented the Emergency Relief and Reconstruction Act, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, and the Federal Home Loan Bank Act. His policies of massive public work programs (such as the Hoover Dam), huge trade barriers, agricultural subsidies, and Federal involvement in lending practices, were all very "progressive".
IVoteNone 2 years ago
Nope, THOSE WERE EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAMS THAT HE REGULATED DURING THE BAD ECONOMIC CRISIS. Before the crisis, HE WAS AN OUTSPOKEN ADVOCATE FOR VOLUNTEERISM AND LESS GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. Even during the Great Depression, HE FEARED GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION WOULD HAVE BEEN TO RISKY Yes, HE DID ADVOCATE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF LAISSEZ FAIRE POLICIES AND DIDN'T DO AS MUCH AS ROOSVELT TO HELP. THESE ARE THE HISTORICAL FACTS. EXCEPT REALITY, YOU STUPID JACKASS. And no, I'M NOT A SOCIALIST
hulkyone 2 years ago
"Nope, THOSE WERE EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAMS THAT HE REGULATED DURING THE BAD ECONOMIC CRISIS."
He enacted these policies during the economic crisis in an attempt to halt the downward spiral.. I don't know how you can construe these policies as being "Laissez Faire". They are decisively progressive. But even ignoring the overwhelming policy evidence that he was not "Laissez Faire", as Commerce Secretary he was very pro-regulation. He was a registered member of Teddy's "Progressive Party" in 1912
IVoteNone 2 years ago
"Hoover entered office with a plan for reform of the nation's regulatory system. A dedicated Progressive and Reformer, Hoover saw the presidency as a vehicle for improving the conditions of all Americans by regulation and by encouraging volunteerism. Long before he entered politics he denounced laissez-faire thinking. As Commerce Secretary he had taken an active pro-regulation stance. As President, he helped push tariff and farm subsidy bills through Congress."
-Wikipedia
IVoteNone 2 years ago
Wikipedia preaches a lot of shit at times. Read the World Almanac 2008. In his small biography section, IT SAID HE WAS NOT MORE MUCH GOVERNMENT REGULATION DURING THE DEPRESSION
hulkyone 2 years ago
This doesn't make any grammatical sense, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to communicate here, but if you're trying to say that Hoover's response to the beginnings of the Great Depression was "laissez faire", that's simply not close to historically accurate. As I said, Hoover enacted public work programs, high tariffs, and agricultural subsidies. There is no ambiguity here. This legislation is less than a century old and well documented. It's not like we're uncovering ancient ruins.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
The basic problem is that both social spending and corporate bailouts harm the economy more than help it. Corporate greed spins out of control more as a result of collusion with government. Get rid of the collusion. Get rid of the Fed, which is at the heart of government/corporate collusion and socials programs won't even be necessary. Freedom works.
Johnhoulgate 3 years ago
No amount of fearmongering about social programs can cover up the massive and unquestionable FAILURE of corporate capitalism or the clear successes of past programs like the GI Bill. Faith in mythical "market forces" is nothing but more of the same cliched sloganeering is a hollow excuse for ongoing and shameless corporate and individual GREED - the central cause to our current crisis. It's time to stop drinking the Corporate Koolaid.
wolfangel13 3 years ago
And that led him to infer an argument from the professor that all government action during the New Deal was bad. No one can explain how an act of government implemented over that much time, by a president who served for 12 years, failed in 4 minutes and 6 second. The failing of one program (piece) does not infer the failing of the whole
Gimplethefool 3 years ago
The argument could hold water if it did not refer to one specific program. Out of the multitude of programs that came out of the New Deal, this professor chose one program that failed. Obviously it is never a good idea to provoke monopoly. The program that was vetted by the professor does not resemble any program in Obama's stimulus package. The reporter took the professor's argument and applied it wildly out of context.
Gimplethefool 3 years ago
The damage to be inflicted on the the American economy by the marxist Obama and his Politburo will be significant.
gottalivefree 3 years ago 4
The more debt our country takes on, the lower the value of the dollar becomes. The inverse effect is inflation. Government is what got us in to this mess,and it sure as hell won't be able to get us out of it.
xpandergt 3 years ago 3
The only way we will is if the government gets out of our way and lets us do what we do best.
hasani42 3 years ago 2
World War II brought us out of FDR's depression. The New Deal did make it worse. Government control over the economy is not the answer.
joeberes1420 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Depression, which arose out of the same failed Republican policies of tax breaks for the rich, lack of regulation, and contempt for the American worker has been repeated over the last 3 decades (culminating in unfettered conservatism run amok under Bush) which is why the market tanked & why Obama won in a landslide. FDR's success with the New Deal is why he won 4 terms & would have won more had he lived. Conservatism was proven by the WS bailout to be nothing short of a catastrophic failure.
HNK222 3 years ago
Spoken like a true liberal who is completely unaware of the high unemployment rates and low GDP in the 30s. The GDP didn't reach 1928 levels until about 1940. Unemployment actually went up under FDR and didn't dip below 10% until '41-'42. The war saved us.
BailMeOut75 3 years ago 3
The depression was the result of failed Republican policies such as trade tariffs, increasing the tax rate for the top bracket from 28% to 63%, the use of bailout in the later part of 1929, and failing to loosen the money supply.
Knoss 3 years ago
What are you reading from the Democratic talking points for the past 80 years? Get some fresh ideas, or better yet, come up with some of your own ideas1! Jeesh
rebth1st 3 years ago
No, the democratic line was that the Republicans caused the depression by not having enough regulation, and allowing the free market to run wild. I am arguing that the Republicans had intervened in the economy through tariffs, progressive income tax, and bailouts which caused a recession which would become the great depression under FDR.
Knoss 3 years ago
Hoover raised the top tax bracket from 28% to 63% FDR raised it to 76% this was not a tax cut for the rich.
Knoss 3 years ago
Right, high taxes are good for society.
By the way the tax was close to 90% for a few month.
llothar68 3 years ago
I'm not saying that at all. What we need is long term cuts in government spending, real cuts in government spending so that long term taxes, the taxes that have to charged are lower, not tax cuats to stimulate the economy.
Knoss 3 years ago
Hah, good for society...more like good way to waste money, Wasting someones elses money is alot easier then your own. And thats what happens, not to mention its like taking blood from one arm and inject it in the other...while spilling blood on the floor.
mammuru 3 years ago
We are not wasting someones else money. Because he don't get it. Sweden, Norway and Denmark is doing very well with this.
It just does not make any sense that somebody deserves to make more then 1 mio dollar a year. He can't spread the money so it will not be invested in the economy but in bubbles.
We have to reduce the total amount of money becuase the current way to produce money out of nothing is the problem (Fed).
llothar68 3 years ago
The high taxes have recently made 150,000 out of 600,000 people in Gothenburg unemployed cause Volvo just cant keep up with the high costs. The government refuses to bail them outSo should they raise taxes? Or Cut taxes to help them out? Studying economics will tell you one thing, Raising taxes only makes things more expensive, decreasing the standard of living.
mammuru 3 years ago
You saying that that one million wont be spent? It would create more jobs. If someone affords to have maids or someone cut your lawn, doesnt that even create jobs? How come made up money by the fed, that will inflate the society woork,but earned cash wont have a trickledown effect?
mammuru 3 years ago
It works in the Scandinavian countries? They are addicted to taxes, they are addicted to a policy that is meant for short term. Like heroin, they believe they need it to build the society, while Sweden was the #3 richest countries in 1970s, after raising their taxes to a record of 102%, it keeps going down hill. Right now the total tax is 51%, and they want to raise more and more. They will always claim they need more taxes, its never enough.
mammuru 3 years ago
Poor people spend money while rich people usually save and invest. That is why money doesn't trickle down.
sharnrock 3 years ago
Investing is a good thing. And it does trickle down. Investment means putting money into a company, the company then needs to ensure a profit, for it to grow, since the company its funded it is now able to buy raw materials, continue production and further sell their product. I do not see how that is not trickling down
When we start taxing everyone, including rich...they become defensive and save more and more. Which causes less investments, since its considered "wrong"
mammuru 3 years ago
Poor people are no longer able to invest as so much money is taxed, inflated, and even purchases are more costly due to regulations, therefore instead of being able to invest, they need to be defensive and spend on necessary things...thats the only thing that they can do...Rich people can handle more taxes, but the less investments and spending means less for the poor.
mammuru 3 years ago
Even Keynes was critical of the New Deal. He said that the New Deal would not deal with long term issues, like that gigantic unemployment rate that went on for years after the New Deal.
jeyzi 3 years ago
I didn't read any of the other posts, but, anyone who claims that Most Economists aren't in agreement that FDR's New deal worked IS A TOTAL LIAR! FDR Suceeded , only republican revisionists want you to think otherwise.
DJH1170 3 years ago
Great commentary coming from a guy whose favorite videos are "Lesbian High School Girls" and Big Foot. The depression ended because of WWII not because of the New Deal. Put down the porn and Big Foot mags and pick up a history book, you might actually learn something.
txroadkill35 3 years ago 2
Hey, those are grown women, and that Bigfoot Video is a hysterically funny joke. But just like a Republican to worry about BJs and yell about fake WMDS. Go find an economist not in Rupert Murdoch's employ who agrees with you. Historically they don't, revisionist.
DJH1170 3 years ago
You need to study the Austrian school economists like Von Mises, Hayek and Rothbard. They proved that America's Great Depression was caused and prolonged by government intervention. In effect the Great Depression didn't really end in that things returned to normal. What actually happened was a total transformation of our economic structure. We went from Agri-Industrial to Cold War economy. Things have never been the same.
Johnhoulgate 3 years ago
Expect the Obama's economic, financial and commerce counsellors will also be speed-reading books by New Deal naysayers as well.
voyeurdug 3 years ago
Wow, Reason is starting to sound like the Austrian schoolers. About time too.
hagbard72 3 years ago 2
Even ignoring the factual errors and poor research behind this video...who said the new deal was great because it ended the depression? It reversed the flow of wealth and put in place programs for those who were not wealthy. For a brief moment in American history the government actually helped its citizens instead of legislating against them as it has since Reagan.
stealth4xw 3 years ago
Stealth this is how America began it's downfall. They lied to Americans with "Trickle down economics" Told them it is great for you if the rich get richer. Now the bitter truth is coming out, & Americans see that they were swindled by Wall street & the lying liars who pulled the rug out from the Average American leaveing them homeless, jobless and penny less, yet people still cling to the propaganda that the New Deal did not work.
valhala56 3 years ago
I'm not sure about the TVA but the WPA was a good thing for Montana which needed the dams and roads which came as a result. I think America still needs infrastructure, infrastructure will and such investment even a little pork will pay off, but the government should take do such investments to take advantage of low prices and unemployment not to correct unemployment.
Knoss 3 years ago
how was the irst new deal bad it helped it also built up american infranstructurea and factories which made our weapons to fight in ww2
rhibac 3 years ago
The New Deal didn't build factories. It made work for unemployed men. In my town, they had men build roads with hand laid bricks...not because it was the smart thing to do. They did it to keep men busy. That's unproductive work and that provided nothing for the war effort.
Name one factory that the New Deal created.
gopmonster 3 years ago
Hoover dam isn't a factory but it basicaly allowed Las Vegas as we know it to come into existance providing hundreds of thousands of jobs, providing water for farmland. Factories are not the only vestige of capital.
valhala56 3 years ago
So did Fort Peck dam, but it is likely these projects would have gone through in a booming economy as the Coollige Dam on the Coumbia River was in the 1920's.
Knoss 3 years ago
Here is the economic fact if you want to pull your head out of the collective consevative ass. The New Deal worked, but they cut back on it, then the biggest public works project came about, America involvement in WW2 which gave the "Political will" to spend whatever it took to win, After war the enemies manufacturing infrastructure & manpower was wiped out, giving America the ability to lead the world in manufacturing & credit, not debtor nation which it is NOW. You know this as well as I do.
valhala56 3 years ago
Once Congress gave $700 billion to the banks, besides $150 billion for PORK, the game was up, the Auto boys wanted a cut, for the union, and got it, and will be back for more, the States and Cities want some, Nobama will give it to them, even the realtors want a cut, and will get it, the line will be long. The taxpayers will foot the bill, after a tax hike. Someone has to pay and the gov. has only our money. American taxpayers, we have been FUCKED, but Nobama will say it is for our own good.
gemini067 3 years ago
Maybe it's just me ... but this video's asking us to follow a mindset based on a brief interview with a single professor, who co-authored a single paper on the subject four years ago. In contrast, this same video includes snippets of a president-elect, a book author, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and others.
-NOT- the way to make a winning case, regardless of where the facts lay. This is, in effect, a 4-minute waste of my time that, if anything, makes me more skeptical of this viewpoint.
thatnewguyhi 3 years ago
This is just the classic Monetarism (Friedman) vs. Keynesian Economic debate. Nothing new. Both sides already knew all this. And unemployment was in 30% in the depression, we're no where near that. This isn't even as bad as the 70s stagflation (which Keynsian Theory fails to explain). The sky isn't falling, we dont need to waste anymore of other people's money on crappy inefficient government spending.
milfhuntergk 3 years ago
Milfhunter, the real unemployment figure is double what the goverment puts out, it really is closer to 15%. Also if you take into account the number of people who are on Goverment Disability Benefits which average 25% then we are now over Depression unemployment and it is going to get worse when retail chains bankrupt after a miserble Christmas sales. Unemployment could get worse then the depression.
You are correct about the Monetarism v Keynesian, but the situation has gone to far to help.
valhala56 3 years ago
Dont intervene and let us plummet towards a new dark age like that in 1345-1348 when the Lombard Banking system in europe collapsed? I think its obvious that the Federal Reserve(the central banking system itself) has FAILED EPICALLY. So the sollution is NOT let it enslave us all. Attempting to pay 680 trillion is not only impossible, its suicidal. The government HAS to intervene, and shut these jokers down.
hearingjuan 3 years ago
BIG surprise you have central banking economists agreeing with you. Probably thinks bailing out financial sector thats being sucked up by the derivatives market is a good idea. If you do not intervene, that means the corporations have to pay the $680 trillion USD in derivative contracts. The worlds combined GDP last year was like 54 trillion USD.
hearingjuan 3 years ago
FDR was no Keynesian. Hitler was a Keynesian. Slave labor, im sorry, minimum wage, is Keynesian. "Loosening the money" to the financial sectors and letting corporations lay people off, to either higher new employees at a lower wage, or outsource the job overseas to sweat shops is Keynesian. Building infrastucture, investing in the Physical economy, to raise the productive means of a country, now thats 100% American Economics. Thats Lincoln, thats Hamilton, thats FDR.
hearingjuan 3 years ago
Ya those libs need to look around 8 years after FDR was sworn in office and then they'll find out what got us out of the Depression.
bittergunowner12 3 years ago
Please, Obama, don't give us another Raw Deal.
dudemanbearpig 3 years ago 3
Yeah NO NEW DEAL! Hope to see you assholes on the bread line soon.
valhala56 3 years ago
funny thing is, the first New Deal actually PROLONGED the Great Depression
dudemanbearpig 3 years ago
Actually that is incorrect, if you look at the Depression statistics the New Deal was working until 37-38 when Gov funding was cut back & unemployment went back up in 38. When WW2 started there was Political will to spend whatever it took to win, thus ending the Depression.
This may not work now because of differnt situation pertaining to energy & liquid fuels, overpopulation & no family farms, so we are screwed no matter how you look at it.
Cheers.
valhala56 3 years ago
Wrong. If Hoover and FDR had simply stayed out, the economy would have fixed itself much sooner. That's what economies do: they have their peaks and valleys. If the gov't stays out this time (which I doubt they will, given Odumbo's statist views), the oncoming depression will eventually be done and over with.
dudemanbearpig 3 years ago
dudemanbearpig, apt name. You are not takeing into account these difference, US was not at war during the Depressin, the US was NOT in debt, The US was Oil exporter not importer,The US still family farms, now mostly coporate farms, Hell most of our food come across the world. The US was still manufacturing, that is over now.
People like you is the reason why the US is totaly screwed, you look to blame Obama who hasn't done a damn thing yet and not look at your own damn self.
valhala56 3 years ago
You don't know a damn thing about economics do you? It was an unregulated shadow banking system that imploded. The securitization of mortage backed securites,credit cards, student loans, car loan, the creation of deratives, CDS Credit Default Swaps in an unregulated banking system has imploded causing a global credit crisis, also leaving the US as the biggest debtor nation in the world, Hey asshole the Japs own us, What free market are you talking about?
valhala56 3 years ago
And when they start swearing, you know you've driven them into an uncontrollable rage. Nice knowing you. "Unregulated banking system?" You crack me up.
dudemanbearpig 3 years ago
dudemanbearpig, your ignorance belies your age. The Unregulated Shadow Banking System is not something I made up. Check the best economist on this Nouriel Roubini Professor of Economics New Your Univiersity or just simply look it up on YouTube.
I am so glad your 21, cause you will experience a lifetime of debt, poverty and overwhelming taxes to pay the trillions that have been racked up by the Goverment and the bailouts to the banks. I feel sorry for the young but make an exception for you.
valhala56 3 years ago
I dont know man, Fannie and Freddie were the MOST regulated firms. Subprime lending was encouraged by congress (and made possible by Greenspan, yes.) But still, i think all would be fine if they could value these MBS for what they're worth in the future. I mean the houses aren't worthless. BUT, just bc no one will buy them and a little thing called "mark-to-market" they have to value all the homes at zero. You said it yourself, "what free market?" -so how can the free market be to blame?
milfhuntergk 3 years ago
What is to blame are stupid greedy people, everybody who bought 5 houses to flip, everybody, who took out 2nd mortages thinking their house's were atm's, everybody who invested in securities they didn't understand, everybody who bought giant SUV's and didn't give a damn about the earth or the next generation is at fault.
A regulated free market can work, this monstroity has blown up in our faces, most people do not understand why,so they start pointing their fingers. It is going to get worse.
valhala56 3 years ago
Regulated-Markets, that is Social Democracies, can work in a homogenous society. Like Norway, Sweden and so forth bc they all roughly want the same thing. But in a heterogeneous society (U.S.) the more you regulate, the more people are discriminated against. Also, Social Democracies have their own set problems. It is not a fix all system. Moreover, take Iceland (who recently crashed, yes) but unitl then, and even now they have the HIGHEST STANDARD of LIVING in the WORLD. They can thank Milton.
milfhuntergk 3 years ago
I don't thin the problem amounts to what economic system works & what doesn't. There are other problems, like too many people in the world,6.5 billion, 300 million in the US in a country that has lost 90% of family farms, what is left is disel powered Corporate farms that ship food on trucks 1500 miles or even food shipped overseas. What do yo do when 35 million people become unemployed? What do you do when credit is totaly frozen, nobody is lending anybody anything except the Fed.
valhala56 3 years ago
...the frozen credit is a huge problem.
But: "if you took the entire world population and put it in Texas. It (texas) still wouldn't have a greater population density than New York City does now." -John Stossel
...even still, what do we do about a problem like this? i wouldn't want to live in a place where somebody tells me how many kids to have. im not saying youre saying this, just pointing out that there are very very tricky issues, that, i believe, are beyond the gov's ability to solve.
milfhuntergk 3 years ago
Milf, I totaly agree, I think it is now beyond Goverment's capability to fix it. Obama will try what he can, but their is no simple answer, The US is bankrupt, what kind of magic is there out there to fix it? None. As Gerald Celente says the US is going to be the first "undeveloped" nation. I take that as meaning unraveling into possibly third world status, ie the fall of the Roman Empire.
You worry about how many kids your allowed to have when what you should worry about is can I feed them?
valhala56 3 years ago
what about Cuba?
Knoss 3 years ago
What about Cuba? BTW I am half Cuban.
valhala56 3 years ago