FDR isn't the main reason we came out of the depression....his new deal policies barely worked. The reason we came out of the depression is because of WW2.
Most people don't even have a fucking clue about the New Deal. For example the AAA paid farmers to reduce farmed land, Some of them took the subsidy but kept farming the lands, so the government got inspectors. The inspectors were getting bribed, so they hired inspectors to inspect the inspectors. Eventually they moved to aerial photography. Then came the agriculture shortages and we ended up having to import agriculture products to make up the difference.
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . and an enormous debt to boot!” - Henry Morgenthau Jr. FDR's right hand man, his Treasury Sec, played a big role in designing the New Deal and one of his closest friends. Funny how that never makes it to the history books. Now we got a generations of ignorant fools who don't know shit.
Landlocked: how southcarolina madefishing history has facts about the new deal and how it affected the state of South carolinq. it focuses on the history of the landlocked striped bass.. Very interesting
sounds like a loan for building public water resorces and public roads but mainly still no personal gains for you and your family only actceptance of poverty and greatful for that . . . but hey potato water soup is good with salt I bet shit got better after the ww2 do to less people to feed and huh "more job's" ROSIE THE RIVITER ! look at your state tax then look at the fed tax in witch your money is gone to never be seen again ok mabe a lill back XD PAY CUTS PRICE HIKES HELL YEAH ! made in ?
The fact we have a President sorrounded by people who admire the New Deal is telling. It's really simple: the New Deal DID NOT WORK. Whether you're a Keynesian or an Austrian, the results speak for themselves.
I don't put all the blame on FDR, how could he have known? But we are wise enough now to know it wasn't just irresponsible business that caused the Great Depression. To the contrary, it was the overreaction of it, with things like Smoot-Hawley.
@tubub The New Deal worked. It brought Unemployment down from over 25%(1933) to under 10% right before we even entered WWII(1941). FDR's New Deal kicked the economy back into growth in 1934, 1 year after he became president.
And then the economy crashed in 1937. Unemployment was over 17% in 1939, look it up. That's not a recovered economy, it's a limping one. The New Deal, by all measures, did not work. People only construe it as a successful set of programs to fit their own agenda.
Reagan's neo-liberal, supply-side economic policies DID work. That's why Clinton embraced them.
@tubub That was because in 1935 FDR passed the Social Security Act, and in 1937 the SS tax was introduced. That is why the Economy shrunk, and unemployment rose. But when SS was given to people the next year, along with other government spending, the GDP started to rise, and unemployment went down. FDR's New Deal did work, and it is the reason why this Country because the "City on a Hill", and we are losing that place because of the politicians now are destroying those programs.
Since Social Security was part of the New Deal it doesn't really matter WHY the economy shrunk; it did. That's what matters.
And no, the GDP only started to rise in 1939 when the United States increased federal spending by 50% in anticipation of WW2. It wasn't until then that we got out of the Great Depression.
This city was the "city on a hill" long, long before FDR's New Deal. We are losing that place because politicians authorize too much spending, and we don't have the money.
@tubub No, SS was part of the 2nd New Deal, completely different from the first New Deal, which had to do with economic reconstruction and strengthening. When he was elected for his second term that was when the 2nd New Deal came about that focused on helping the Middle Class.
No, you are 100% wrong. in 1934 after passing the the New Deal the year before, the GDP began to raise. It rose until 1937 when there was a small recession, but quickly recovered in 1938.
@tubub The GDP of the US was growing long before the US prepared for the World War. Even according the the BEA, the recession that happened in 1937 didn't go below the GDP level before the Great Depression at 1000Billion. I will say that WWII, helped increase GDP, but the GDP was already raising and the US was out of the Great Depression long before WWII.
@tubub No, Other countries may have thought that we were the "city on a hill" but when they actually got here there was no greatness about working here. in the late 1800s when a huge wave of immigrants came over, which most people here now are related to, had hard times. The a lot of the men had no jobs because of the assembly lines in the 1860s, and factories and corporations only hired women and mainly children because they could manipulate these people for extremely cheap wages,
@tubub and extremely long days. The working conditions were also horrible. Factory managers would lock them in the factory until closing. This would prove deadly with the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in 1911. FDR was the FIRST president that actually did anything to help the Middle Class as a whole. With his Minimum Wage laws and child labor laws, and the National Labor Relations Act(Wagner Act). He gave this country the right to be called the "city on a hill" because he actually
@tubub passed laws that would help and protect immigrants instead of manipulating them, and end the "if they die who cares there is more" attitude of the Corporations and factories. We are losing that because we are getting rid of basing rights. They are trying to strip Union rights which is what helps make this country great. Like Reagan said “Where Free Unions and Collective Bargaining are Forbidden, Freedom is Lost”.
@tubub cut defensive spending in half. quit giving foreign aid to other countries. institute a progressive tax system. close tax loopholes. stop subsidizing big business. cut back on big government. the economy grew leaps n bounds as did the middle class after roosevelt took office, for a variety of reasons. read howard zinn's 'a peaople's history of the united states' and stop idolizing glenn beck. ty
Haha you recommend Howard Zinn and are trying to claim objectivity? Please, spare me. I despise Glenn Beck, he's an anti-intellectual airhead. Thanks for assuming something with no proof. Howard Zinn's an intellectual but also an ideologue. His work may be stimulating but it's also completely biased.
The New Deal did not work. FDR did NOT, let me repeat DID NOT, cut defense spending in half. The huge increase in defense spending is what actually pulled us out of the depression.
@tubub i never said he cut defense in half. but spending taxes on defense DID NOT GET OUT OF THE DEPRESSION ALONE! the war effort was a few years away. how can you be so ignorant? and zinn provides a glimpse of history through the eyes of the oppressed. i checked your homepage and find you're a supporter of michelle bachmann. nuff said
First of all, I am not a supporter of Michele Bachmann. But even if I was, it has no relevance to this discussion.
Why don't you actually read up on the regulatory burdens investors had in the early 1930s, and how they couldn't invest because of Federal Reserve inaction.
More importantly, saying "the war effort was a few years away" is either a red herring or just shows ignorance on your part. FDR had begun preparations for war in 1939 and military expenditures reflected that.
@tubub so the economy did not grow steadily after the new deal until the early 70s? the new deal helped to expand the middle class alleviate inequality. reagan's deregulations directly caused the s and l crash. you believe you are objective but you're not. you desperately cling to your beliefs forsaking any attempt to research the other end of the political and economic spectrum. you're a wonderful lil neoconservative in the making.
No. Anyone versed with economic history knows of the numerous recessions in the 1950s.
"reagan's deregulations" Really? Quantify that.
Again, you're applying your own sensibilities to me. Stop putting labels on everything and actually say something.
A study of the 1930s by Christina D. Romer, a professor at Berkeley (“What Ended the Great Depression?,”) confirmed that expansionary monetary policy was the key to the partial recovery of the 1930s
@KnightxxArrow You are completely lying. The New Deal worked. It brought Unemployment down from over 25%(1933) to under 10% right before we even entered WWII(1941). FDR's New Deal kicked the economy back into growth in 1934, 1 year after he became president.
Look at some stats comparing the size of the government and the government workforce at 1930 vs. today as a percentage of the population. Or look at government expenditures as a percentage of GDP then vs. now. Simply staggering.
The New Deal was a band aid that had the unfortunate effect of creating the Welfare State that we live in today. The initial goal was simply to provide jobs to get us out of the depression, even if that meant creating significant debt owed by the Federal government. That portion was pretty clearly successful (although I agree WWII complicates things). However, the failure lies in that it will never end - bigger government and greater entitlements lead to more and more of the same.
German socialism was medicine first candy later and american social scientist was candy with poison in it and then watered down medicine that they stole the recipe from Germans...
So they got rid of their derelicts and Criminals and we bred them and armed them to defeat them in a international civil Economy pageant, and now its a post industrialization declining civilization food-chain and we are starting to become the smaller fish...
People,start thinking plz - FDR was the worst president ever - HE just executed the idead of the powerfull banking cartell that had the controll over the nations money suplly (The FED isnt federal at all - and manipulations of the economy by signle men occured since earliest times) a nation/government should have controll over its money supply,not so over the economy as a whole !that just deprives the people,makes em lazy and creativless
You American have no memory. Roosevelt saved your country with "socialized" ways. You could have saved your economy again in 2008 with a New New Deal. They didn't tried to speak about "liberals, gay, communist were destroying your country". They were doing things RATIONALY. Your lack of memory will kill you someday.
FDR was a true liberal social democrat, the reason we are in the mess we are today is because we have strayed too far away from his ideas about liberty, equality and fraternity - neoliberalism, globalization and deindustrialization are all connected and is what has led to our economic turmoil.
Market fundamentalism and laissez-faire have failed, the Panics of 1873, 1893 and the crashes of 1907 and 1929 showed us what happens when markets are allowed to run amok.
civil war in this country probably would have been a possibility if FDR hadn't become president. Elsewhere in the world, economic instability was leading to dictatorships and internal strife
A very great man of bold vision and courage. He stook to his principles and wasn't swayed by the powerful political interests of the rebublicans, FDR ranks up there with Lincoln and Jefferson!!
@tonyrosam STFU are you dumb? FDR extended the great depression, Germany, Italy and Japan got us out of the Great Depression by starting WW2. Social Security is bankrupt and totally unconstitutional and on top of that he started this whole entitlement idea where we think we are entitled to health care and money. You're totally retarded and I cant believe how stupid you are.
@cwood4ever Social Security is bankrupt? I know reality infuriates rightwingers (as does anything Christian like helping the least among us), but Social Security has ALWAYS operated with a SURPLUS!
It's interesting that initiating programs to HELP people not only pay for themselves, but CREATE A SURPLUS! Rightwingers want to obliterate ANYTHING that helps Americans (Social Security, Medicare, Healthcare) and push for malevolence like Iraq & endless war - the results there speak for themselves
@cwood4ever Social Security generally gives you what you put into it. It's a very important program, even Ayn Rand made use of it. Judging by your lack of composition skills and articulation, I'm guessing that you're no college graduate. Why, then, would you oppose working class interests? And don't give me any "gubmint dependence" bullshit. The main proponents of such rhetoric (business leaders) are more Gov't dependent than anyone else. Who do you think enforces their property rights?
@cwood4ever Bull. Social Security Guarantees the person with money that they put into it. You want to know what actually is a ponzi scheme is? Private insurance. They can take as much of your money as they want and then deny you coverage when you need it. That is a ponzi scheme. Social Security doesn't do that.
@visini14 "social security guarantees the person money" in inflated dollars and you cant give it to your kids when you die. You go to JAIL for opting out. Insurance is voluntary and you wont go to jail for not buying it. Learn some facts child on what a ponzi scheme is. Besides insurance and social security are two different things. You don't get SS for insurance. Its a retirement deal, that's bankrupt, steal peoples money after they die and f course wont be there for me in 50 years.
@cwood4ever You are totally lying. My mother's father died, and my grandmother and my mom both get some oh his Social Security money and benefits. That happens until their social security runs out, or the mother dies too and they have to chose between the two social security plans. That goes the same with spouses. They should go to jail, because it is tax evasion. Social Security isn't a Ponzi Scheme, Private insurance is. Social Security guarantees to give the money that a person
@cwood4ever put in it, private insurance doesn't. That is is ponzi scheme. You are an idiot if you think that SS is bankrupt. It has a 2.6 Trillion surplus. Social Security has and is still running on a surplus. The Government said that it is, so they can cut benefits and spend more of the SS money. Again you are so wrong. SS can pay 100% of benefits through 2037 and at worst 80% of all benefits after than indefinably.
@visini14 keep thinking that but are are 14 trillion in debt. We borrow our money from the next generation, China and other nations. The game is up. Redistribution of wealth doesnt work. I would much rather keep the money I put into SS and invest it my self or just save it in a savings account. I dont need daddy government "saving" my money in inflated dollars. You should go get an education it will help you not look like such a retard. There is no surplus there is no saving period.
@cwood4ever Your comment has no point. It is just a bunch of things in one. When you get an education where you can actually stay on one topic, and not jump around like a spastic retard, I will respond. Until then, go fuck yourself, because none of what you said made any sense.
@visini14 thats right walk away, you cant answer basic truths and you're forced to face the facts that you have been bad to in the biggest ponzi scheme. Thanks for the win bitch
@cwood4ever I am not walking away you dumb ass. Your comment made absolutely no sense, and had no point to it. You are an idiot, and I pity you and you mother for having you. You are pathetic if you actually think that you "won" because you in no way won, because you made no sense. Dumb ass.
@visini14 It would only make no sense to someone with a childish mind who wants others to take care of him. How does I will save for my own retirement and not allow the government to steal my money not make sense? I win bye bye
@cwood4ever Oh you win at having the most uncompromisable comment on Youtube, but in a debate, you wouldn't even get in the top 100K. You are pathetic.
@visini14 How about instead of being a child and just attacking me you destroy my arguments? Oh wait you cant because you cant even comprehend such complex things. You cant even follow along with small paragraphs that I have been getting plenty of reply's that others understand. Go watch American Idol or something and let the men discuss real issues.
@cwood4ever No I can't argue with something that makes no sense. You are an idiot. You actually think that that comment made sense? Yeah maybe to other idiots like yourself. Oh and by that way I hate reality tv shows. Funny how you think that I like them, just because I called you out from being an idiot, which you are.
@scoves9484 yes and I assume that the GI bill that your father or grandfather got when they returned from the war which allowed them to educate themselves and get a good job so that now u can buy huge ugly big tvs had nothing to do with goverment policies.... gimme a break individualist!
Any of you saying that FDR, or Hoover caused the Depression are clearly not very wise or well educated about this period in American History.
The Wall Street Crash sparked the Great Depression. It stopped the cycle of prosperity from the 1920's in its tracks and led to a cycle of poverty. Americas economic boom was doomed to go bust. Intervention from Government helped RECOVER the American economy. But it took WWII and the armament industry to completely turn the economy around again.
@968BabyJane Exactly. It was the lack of government control that caused the depression. We let the economy run around like a chicken with its head cut off, and it finally collapsed.
@scoves9484: Jobs created by the government cost more than they produce? wtf? How much did the TVA cost vs what it did for commerce? And how much of the cost was payroll that went back into the economy? Your statement is just plain ignorant. Many of the projects FDR started are still reaping commercial benefits today, decades after the expenditures.
Many of the comments here show the ignorance of history and of economics, and the romantization of a man who helped to destroy the economy, which led to the mass misery of people for another 7 years. The New Deal is the greatest American testament of the 20th century that free markets are the only viable way to produce a higher standard of living for the common man. Why do people still believe in tribal planned economies? The notion is so silly yet such a detriment to actual people.
Do you know what i dont understand, that despite hardships, which are unbearable for some i understand, everyone demands immediate relief on every problem that appears. why can't one choose to accept that changing a serious problem takes time and why some aren't aware that this time will have draw backs and losses for some. almost everyone doesnt accept this, from politicians that think they can change the world to the poorest man
The New Deal was successful in that it created a Safety Net for people when times were tough. But it focused too much on Empowering Government and not people when they were down. And it created a "Culture of Dependency".
obama raw deal for americans. bail out rich bankers and nothing for the working poor. another puppet of the clintons and kennedys = mass mexican immigration, money that is worthless, debt larger than bush.
the new deal caused 13% unemployment, afterwards when hoover was prez and introduced lower taxes, unemployment went from 13% to 2%. Go figure, progressive tactics fuck america, and then conservatives come to the rescue.
Didn't FDR make TWO New Deals? How do I differentiate between the two. Hannity said the New Deal made the depression last longer. I guess I need to get a little more scholarly but I'm feeling tired at the moment. It would be kind of awesome to have a time machine.
@grunt11b I fail to see how this comment of yours directly relates with mine. You are speaking in tongues as far as I'm concerned. You are making commenting indirectly... not saying what you mean. Shoot from the hip once in a while, dude. Show some fucking balls.
The New Deal put the US on the right track but unfortunately we repeated the same mistakes they did during the 20s. And that is excessive spending and speculation in the stocks. Some people will just never learn.
You're somewhat right. The new deal provided temporary relief, but the spending artificially inflated the market leading to future bubbles and recession
You're right about that. As disastrous as the New Deal was, we have not learned that government intervention destroys the free market and creates depressions. Hoover and FDR's intervention into the economy was unprecedented and resulted in a Great Depression, so I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that government intervention is to blame for the great depression, SINCE THE ONLY TIME IT WAS TRIED IT RESULTED IN A GREAT DEPRESSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@jjrglobal This is one of the few comments that makes any sense. The New Deal was a disaster and we're repeating the folly of socialistic intervention in the twenty-first century.
I like how people here are saying the New Deal did nothing. It's sad, because I think they don't understand what economics is. It's not the flow of money, it's how humans control their surroundings. This includes infastructure and development, and people don't realize that America's infastructure was failing at a rapid rate, and the New Deal brought it back. The 2ed War helping things, but it was hardly the only thing that brought us out of the Depression.
@stronzoassoluto Not quite. The infastrucutre of the United States was crumbling, thus the US was losing physical economy. I'm sure the New Deal was not good if you were an investment banker (who were causing alot of the problems) but if you were a steel worker with no heat or electricity, then i'm sure it was really good. Besides, the USA could not have entered WW II if not for the New Deal.
@rocknrollguru23 this is an interesting topic. I'd like to to discuss it further. Are there any aspects that could be compered on what is going on now?
@stronzoassoluto Well, Glass-Steagall was repealed in the 90's, and that was a huge mistake. The two situations are somewhat similar, however our government this time decided to give money out to social programs and banks instead of creating any sort of protectionist policies or developing infastructure.
Listen..ill put it in the plainest terms possible ....if you help the niggas you get shot..Lincoln ...Kennedy pure examples..help the little guy ignore the stat qup get killed....Listen to Stat Quo do what they say ..live long..
Thru suicides, starvation, anarchy, my grandfolks generation learned that extremist pursuit of pure laissez faire was a Failed Experiment--jusr as Soviet Communism was!. Extremism, superstition--dont work!
FDR saved them from starvation--by discarding superstitious fear of moderation.
Their generation loved FDR as a hero who saved their lives from Republican DO-NOTHING Hoover.
I can't believe America turns down the idea of social health care so quickly, so naive you are.Oh, you don't want to pay for others surgeries do you?I'd rather pay taxes each month and get a surgery through tax payers money then pay$50,000 all at once.I don't know about you but I can't afford it. Canada, France, Britain, countries with social health care are way better off and also have a lower death toll in hospitals and medical incidents, but I guess you can't change everyone's mind.
The great depression occurred about 11 years after the first world war. FDR was lifting us out of the depression but then he got scared by the amount of resistance he was getting from the rich business men and cut back spending. This slowed recovery but then by Dec 7th 1941 we were well on our way out of the depression. Since the late 1960's all of FDR's regulations have been dismantled, this has led to the shrinking of the middle class and the enrichment of the top 1% of Americans.
@kevin19713 lolololololol except unemployment remained higher than it is now until the late 30's. All his programs did nothing but prolong the depression. Remember that depression in 1920 after WWI? Oh right you don't because it didnt take over 6 years to recover from. Why? because Harding did the opposite of what Roosevelt would do in the not so far future
Or the truth is that FDR took Hoovers interventionist policies and created the Great Depression. Every other economic downturn in American history had not lasted more than 18 months,until the government decided it could fix the problem in 1929.If you think we aren't still suffering from FDR's moronic policies, well look no further than Fannie Mae, ground zero for the current crisis. Or the $50Trillion underfunded SS and Medicare which will be the next big crisis. FDR created all
@kevin19713 FDR didn't do shit to lift us out of the Depression. On the eve of WWII, unemployment was as high as it was at the onset of the Depression.
@kevin19713 but the san thing and the horrible thing is that americans dont believe that because..... the reps have made a better progapandistic campaign! and the dems are cowards who are afraid of being called socialists as if that were something bad
@kevin19713 Except there was a recession in 1920 that didn't turn into a depression due to different govt. policies. The New Deal only prolonged the depression. There was another depression in '37. It was WWII that got us out, not the new deal. Please educate yourself
@tjohn1986 And how do you think WWII got us out of the depression? BY MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON WAR MATERIAL. The double dip depression of 37 was due to a pullback in spending and an attempt to balance the budget urged by the Republicans in Congress.
@enkelin32 Hmm NO it wasn't govt spending, it was the demand created by the war, and it was payed by different countries long before US even entered the war.
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work........" - Henry Morgenthau, May 1939
(you can look up the whole quote as I cannot fit it here).
If war creates prosperity, we should just blow shit up and pay people to rebuilt it, and repeat the process.
@tjohn1986 We entered the war in 1941. As far as government spending, google " Deficit spending 1920 until 2011 chart" and you will see just how much government spending was done for WWII. Yes paying people to make things to be blown up (in another country) DOES stimulate the economy. That is total demand that is never satiated.. You are not nearly the historian or economist that you think you are.
@enkelin32 Fail again dude. While you're at google why don't you google the tax rates through 50s and 60s. Deficit spending isn't FREE. People paid through their nose for what the govt borrowed.
@tjohn1986 True in 1944 the TOP tax rate was 94%. People used to have to PAY when the country went to war. That was what always happened, The first income tax was instituted by Abraham Lincoln and then repealed after the end of the civil war. ONLY to idiot Republicans can the fight 2 wars on borrowed money. There also used to be many different tax rates not just 3. You paid the top rate if you made millions of dollars, not if you made 150K like now. Rich people laugh at you DUDE.
@tjohn1986 Yeah but don't act like you're at the top of the margin paying for those taxes. IF the wealthy were taxed it was because they could afford it. Boston merchant Edward Filene. "Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me?"Filene asked."I took all of it from them."
@TheORGANEZIZED If that's the case the same rule should apply to you. You can AFFORD to give most of your money away. You can do with food, clothes and other basic subsistence.
im sick of people who have no knowledge on history and what the new deal was. If the new deal didn't worck then how come the american economy reached the same height as it had in the 1920's by 1937?
And i am so sick of people who compare the Bailout of today with the New Deal. The New Deal created State jobs to fill the void of un-employment left by the Great Depresion, citizens were free to accept or refuse such jobs which is the proper role of the government. Once the economy recovered such jobs were elimnated, because when given the choice between state or private jobs people will normaly chosse private. The bailout is just tax payer money to save compaines that deserve to fail.
The New Deal barely did anything to help, sure it provided jobs but they weren't well paying and thus not providing the people the thought that they can safely go out and buy stuff again. That's how you get out of a recession, you have to buy more but people are too afraid to do that because they don't want to go broke.
All it did was give more control to the government for a limited period of time which was unconstitutional.
If you believe WWII bumped the United States out of a depression, then you believe in Keynesian economics; the principle that investment (injections) into the economy should equal savings (leakage). Government spending on war efforts, as well as US focus on economic war efforts reset the equilibrium.
This is an argument I hear often and there is a gigantic fallacy with it. I've never had anyone properly explain to me why deficit spending for infrastructure is disastrous for the economy but deficit spending for war is what pulled us out of the great depression. If anything to me it just proves the New Deal wasn't big enough.
All those lazy democrats care about is having "jobs" and feeding their "families" and keeping a "roof" over their heads! What about the integrity of the free market? Doesn't anyone care about that anymore?
You're missing Friedman's theme, and what the real point of Principles of Economics classes is. One that not many students seem to get. He is providing an extreme example of free-market economics. Clearly it will never happen, but it is a base to start policy decisions. If we can't understand highly stylized artificial examples, we have no chance of understanding the world.
You know... Some months ago, all you could see in this kind of videos were many neo-conservative Friedman fans saying that Roosevelt was a dictator, that a free-market is a solution to all problems, that egotism makes our world better everyday, that regulation, federal policies, healthcare or care at all represented the face of the devil... I'm glad to see changes. I'm glad to see people think after we've seen the results of decades of that policies.
Bush and Greenspan set out with a mission to increase home ownership by artificially lowering interest rates far below market level to an absurd 1%, and using other government instruments, i.e. The Federal Housing Administration, Fannie and Freddie, various pieces of legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act to encourage and even force lenders to make risky loans they would not have otherwise made. Housing Bubble. Financial Crisis. Economic collapse. NOT FREE MARKET!
This documentary changed my world view, the only time socialism was alowed to properly function was under Roosevelt, I can only hope we get a similar policy to the new deal to hoist us out of the present troubles.
Yeah lets hope this is the end of the freemarket madness. Roosevelt wasn't perfect but its a start lol. My dad always winds me up about all this, he thinks that this is it, there will be no change in my lifetime (im 22!). I hate this pessimism, something like this simply has to change things, however I don't see strong polititians at the moment, no one we can hav any real faith in.....
The New Deal spent government money building infrasstructure which in the end are investments that give back more revenue than they took to build not to mention they created jobs during a time when their were few.
The 700 billion dollar bailout gives money to the Bankers that created this mess and does not guarantee jobs for anyone or help the country move in any one direction.
The bailout is just preventing the dog from shaking out the fleas.
Only the bankers aren't the only ones who created this mess. The Federal Reserve System did that. When you create "money" from nowhere and artificially lower interest rates, money becomes less valuable. Fact. And the New Deal didn't fix anything. All it did was provide a temporary illusion of prosperity, causing more long-term problems. The jobs it created weren't permanent careers, but temporary projects that were over after six months, leaving the people unemployed again, thus the illusion.
Haha. Yeah. I did just google that the day before. I have no idea what I'm talking about. FUCK OFF. Wanna try me? Look up Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, whatever. I've studied economics. Do you even know what causes inflation or what the Laffer curve is? How about the Federal funds rate? I do. I can explain it in dumbass terms if you want me too. I'm tired of little bleeding hearts listening to the media and their liberal history teachers instead of researching facts. I'm no expert, though.
@savesanotherday Facts in Politics can be manipulated in too many ways to consider them facts.
The experts of psychology at the highest level are far too good to look for facts. You would have to have access at their level and they know that.
I am not trying to argue with you though! I don't have anything wrong with you, but I just wanted to express my views as well, whether they are correct or not. There are more people that think they know than actually do because of media propaganda.
Free market economics is fine reasoning, it's quite entrancing, but it's just reasoning. It's not factual, it's speculative, praxeology, not empirical.
You can call them bleeding hearts, but they are just reacting emotionally to the empirical conditions. There is nothing wrong with reacting like a human being to the maltreatment of other human beings.
@Jcolinsol Agreed. In one of my first economy lessons in uni my professor (a free markets enthusiast) specified that the models studied are done so as if they were "ideal markets" and that no market was "ideal" because to be so all the market operators need the same level of power and that is impossible. Look at the job market...can anyone say that the labourer has the same power as the one offering work? Or the big supermarkets versus small retail?
Well, I don't think that freemarket advocates ignore disparities in economic power, they have a more fluid conception of it, because they take changes over time into account.
@Jcolinsol When I say power I do not mean economical power, I mean pure power. After the black plague, when work became scarcer and land more abundant there was a shift of power from the land owner to the worker. Laws of serfdom could not be upheld because a lord was happy to protect a serf that moved illegally from one domain to his own so the otherday serf could look for a better life and become free.
@Jcolinsol And I would disagree. They do ignore them because they focus on the fact that a free market produces more wealth. But they stop at that. I personally agree that a free market is more eficient but we have to know that there are no ideal markets and that the objective should still be to elevate the quality of life of as many as possible and for that you will need some redistribution of wealth.
Well, I could have put it more accurately by saying that their idea of the market is less idealistic than others? I wouldn't really say that they are only concerned with increased wealth generation. "Free market" is the conclusion that they draw from their school of praxeology. I think that you are also forgetting that there are no universal objectives, standards, values, or morals, much as I love the idea of egalitarianism. I'm just against force, personally.
@Jcolinsol I am sorry Jcolinsol, but that is the fundamental point where we disagree. There are universal values, ideals and even morals, they are a geneticly inbuilt part of being human. And the function of political institutions is their application. Not to do it is to allow ourselves into the chaos of the rule of the strongest. Roosevelt with the New Deal, the social democratic governements in western europe were doing just that.
Alright, but how do you prove such a thing? How do you prove that there is a universal moral code? If there were, why would we even debate it? Why would we even need to vote? We'd all agree. Remember Hume? You cannot logically derive an ought from an is?
I'm, personally, against institutions. Whether economic or political, and I don't believe that the abolition of institutions will create chaos. Rather, it is the institutions which are creating chaos right now.
Do to others what you want done to you. Dont do to others what you would not want done to you. Even chimps and dogs have been observed showing a sense of what is fair.
About the institutions, ideally you would have no need for them but men are weak and faulty and as someone (sorry too long out of uni to remember who) sauid: men create states (and its institutions) not to have to obey to other men.
@Jcolinsol We debate it because human beings are complex and there is relativity in the aplication of that morality. The puropose here is not to be angels but to try to be angels. Is it right to eat another human being? No. What if you are a member of the uruguayan rugby team that crashed in the andes and the humans being eaten are your dead colleagues and by eating them you are trying to keep alive untill you are saved? Is it right to steal a loaf of bread? No! but what if...
@greenday1978 There is a right answer but that right answer varies according with circumstances. The key is that you have to aim for the greater good not your egotistical self good but the greater good for all, and of course this can be fuzzy or relatively unclear, and to clarify it you debate and you vote.
FDR isn't the main reason we came out of the depression....his new deal policies barely worked. The reason we came out of the depression is because of WW2.
dancefreakmn 23 hours ago
Can we simply comment with out swearing
1969ponitacgtofan 1 week ago
Most people don't even have a fucking clue about the New Deal. For example the AAA paid farmers to reduce farmed land, Some of them took the subsidy but kept farming the lands, so the government got inspectors. The inspectors were getting bribed, so they hired inspectors to inspect the inspectors. Eventually they moved to aerial photography. Then came the agriculture shortages and we ended up having to import agriculture products to make up the difference.
emp0rizzle 1 week ago
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . and an enormous debt to boot!” - Henry Morgenthau Jr. FDR's right hand man, his Treasury Sec, played a big role in designing the New Deal and one of his closest friends. Funny how that never makes it to the history books. Now we got a generations of ignorant fools who don't know shit.
emp0rizzle 1 week ago
The name was Daleno.
Franklin Daleno R.
0engima0 2 weeks ago
Having looked at your other comments, my senses were confirmed. You are an ignorant dumb ass.
tubub 2 weeks ago
@tubub keep swallowing jizz for pocket change! hahaha
blastsummit 2 weeks ago
0:19 Americans need to re-learn how to protest like that.
HolocaustPorn 3 weeks ago
0:20 ROFL and they say occupy movement is violent xD
Lius525 4 weeks ago
Landlocked: how southcarolina madefishing history has facts about the new deal and how it affected the state of South carolinq. it focuses on the history of the landlocked striped bass.. Very interesting
Landlockedfilm 1 month ago
sounds like a loan for building public water resorces and public roads but mainly still no personal gains for you and your family only actceptance of poverty and greatful for that . . . but hey potato water soup is good with salt I bet shit got better after the ww2 do to less people to feed and huh "more job's" ROSIE THE RIVITER ! look at your state tax then look at the fed tax in witch your money is gone to never be seen again ok mabe a lill back XD PAY CUTS PRICE HIKES HELL YEAH ! made in ?
nickiz1 2 months ago
The Socialistic New Deal didn't do much. It was until we entered WWII was when things went better.
KnightxxArrow 2 months ago
@KnightxxArrow
The fact we have a President sorrounded by people who admire the New Deal is telling. It's really simple: the New Deal DID NOT WORK. Whether you're a Keynesian or an Austrian, the results speak for themselves.
I don't put all the blame on FDR, how could he have known? But we are wise enough now to know it wasn't just irresponsible business that caused the Great Depression. To the contrary, it was the overreaction of it, with things like Smoot-Hawley.
tubub 2 months ago
@tubub The New Deal worked. It brought Unemployment down from over 25%(1933) to under 10% right before we even entered WWII(1941). FDR's New Deal kicked the economy back into growth in 1934, 1 year after he became president.
visini14 1 month ago
@visini14
And then the economy crashed in 1937. Unemployment was over 17% in 1939, look it up. That's not a recovered economy, it's a limping one. The New Deal, by all measures, did not work. People only construe it as a successful set of programs to fit their own agenda.
Reagan's neo-liberal, supply-side economic policies DID work. That's why Clinton embraced them.
tubub 1 month ago
@tubub That was because in 1935 FDR passed the Social Security Act, and in 1937 the SS tax was introduced. That is why the Economy shrunk, and unemployment rose. But when SS was given to people the next year, along with other government spending, the GDP started to rise, and unemployment went down. FDR's New Deal did work, and it is the reason why this Country because the "City on a Hill", and we are losing that place because of the politicians now are destroying those programs.
visini14 1 month ago
@visini14
Since Social Security was part of the New Deal it doesn't really matter WHY the economy shrunk; it did. That's what matters.
And no, the GDP only started to rise in 1939 when the United States increased federal spending by 50% in anticipation of WW2. It wasn't until then that we got out of the Great Depression.
This city was the "city on a hill" long, long before FDR's New Deal. We are losing that place because politicians authorize too much spending, and we don't have the money.
tubub 1 month ago
@tubub No, SS was part of the 2nd New Deal, completely different from the first New Deal, which had to do with economic reconstruction and strengthening. When he was elected for his second term that was when the 2nd New Deal came about that focused on helping the Middle Class.
No, you are 100% wrong. in 1934 after passing the the New Deal the year before, the GDP began to raise. It rose until 1937 when there was a small recession, but quickly recovered in 1938.
visini14 1 month ago
@tubub The GDP of the US was growing long before the US prepared for the World War. Even according the the BEA, the recession that happened in 1937 didn't go below the GDP level before the Great Depression at 1000Billion. I will say that WWII, helped increase GDP, but the GDP was already raising and the US was out of the Great Depression long before WWII.
visini14 1 month ago
@tubub No, Other countries may have thought that we were the "city on a hill" but when they actually got here there was no greatness about working here. in the late 1800s when a huge wave of immigrants came over, which most people here now are related to, had hard times. The a lot of the men had no jobs because of the assembly lines in the 1860s, and factories and corporations only hired women and mainly children because they could manipulate these people for extremely cheap wages,
visini14 1 month ago
@tubub and extremely long days. The working conditions were also horrible. Factory managers would lock them in the factory until closing. This would prove deadly with the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in 1911. FDR was the FIRST president that actually did anything to help the Middle Class as a whole. With his Minimum Wage laws and child labor laws, and the National Labor Relations Act(Wagner Act). He gave this country the right to be called the "city on a hill" because he actually
visini14 1 month ago
@tubub passed laws that would help and protect immigrants instead of manipulating them, and end the "if they die who cares there is more" attitude of the Corporations and factories. We are losing that because we are getting rid of basing rights. They are trying to strip Union rights which is what helps make this country great. Like Reagan said “Where Free Unions and Collective Bargaining are Forbidden, Freedom is Lost”.
visini14 1 month ago
@visini14
dude.... i'm not replying to all of that.
tubub 1 month ago
@tubub I was just giving you a response to what you said.
visini14 1 month ago
@tubub cut defensive spending in half. quit giving foreign aid to other countries. institute a progressive tax system. close tax loopholes. stop subsidizing big business. cut back on big government. the economy grew leaps n bounds as did the middle class after roosevelt took office, for a variety of reasons. read howard zinn's 'a peaople's history of the united states' and stop idolizing glenn beck. ty
blastsummit 2 weeks ago
@blastsummit
Haha you recommend Howard Zinn and are trying to claim objectivity? Please, spare me. I despise Glenn Beck, he's an anti-intellectual airhead. Thanks for assuming something with no proof. Howard Zinn's an intellectual but also an ideologue. His work may be stimulating but it's also completely biased.
The New Deal did not work. FDR did NOT, let me repeat DID NOT, cut defense spending in half. The huge increase in defense spending is what actually pulled us out of the depression.
tubub 2 weeks ago
@tubub i never said he cut defense in half. but spending taxes on defense DID NOT GET OUT OF THE DEPRESSION ALONE! the war effort was a few years away. how can you be so ignorant? and zinn provides a glimpse of history through the eyes of the oppressed. i checked your homepage and find you're a supporter of michelle bachmann. nuff said
blastsummit 2 weeks ago
@blastsummit
First of all, I am not a supporter of Michele Bachmann. But even if I was, it has no relevance to this discussion.
Why don't you actually read up on the regulatory burdens investors had in the early 1930s, and how they couldn't invest because of Federal Reserve inaction.
More importantly, saying "the war effort was a few years away" is either a red herring or just shows ignorance on your part. FDR had begun preparations for war in 1939 and military expenditures reflected that.
tubub 2 weeks ago
@tubub silly child. believe in your fantasies!
blastsummit 2 weeks ago
@tubub recheck your info on reagan-nomics, kid.
blastsummit 2 weeks ago
@tubub so the economy did not grow steadily after the new deal until the early 70s? the new deal helped to expand the middle class alleviate inequality. reagan's deregulations directly caused the s and l crash. you believe you are objective but you're not. you desperately cling to your beliefs forsaking any attempt to research the other end of the political and economic spectrum. you're a wonderful lil neoconservative in the making.
blastsummit 2 weeks ago
@blastsummit
No. Anyone versed with economic history knows of the numerous recessions in the 1950s.
"reagan's deregulations" Really? Quantify that.
Again, you're applying your own sensibilities to me. Stop putting labels on everything and actually say something.
A study of the 1930s by Christina D. Romer, a professor at Berkeley (“What Ended the Great Depression?,”) confirmed that expansionary monetary policy was the key to the partial recovery of the 1930s
tubub 2 weeks ago
@tubub child, conservative fools like you are what's wrong with america. your community college education has failed you!
blastsummit 2 weeks ago
@KnightxxArrow
true but the programs were actually working and keeping people in work sadly yes WW2 ended the depression
thegill666 2 months ago
@KnightxxArrow You are completely lying. The New Deal worked. It brought Unemployment down from over 25%(1933) to under 10% right before we even entered WWII(1941). FDR's New Deal kicked the economy back into growth in 1934, 1 year after he became president.
visini14 1 month ago
Look at some stats comparing the size of the government and the government workforce at 1930 vs. today as a percentage of the population. Or look at government expenditures as a percentage of GDP then vs. now. Simply staggering.
FreeTunes498 3 months ago
The New Deal was a band aid that had the unfortunate effect of creating the Welfare State that we live in today. The initial goal was simply to provide jobs to get us out of the depression, even if that meant creating significant debt owed by the Federal government. That portion was pretty clearly successful (although I agree WWII complicates things). However, the failure lies in that it will never end - bigger government and greater entitlements lead to more and more of the same.
FreeTunes498 3 months ago
German socialism was medicine first candy later and american social scientist was candy with poison in it and then watered down medicine that they stole the recipe from Germans...
So they got rid of their derelicts and Criminals and we bred them and armed them to defeat them in a international civil Economy pageant, and now its a post industrialization declining civilization food-chain and we are starting to become the smaller fish...
JonesArmandoHoward 4 months ago in playlist NEW WORLD ORDER
FDR was a piece of shit. He had a total disregard for the Constitution and he was a socialist.
jpete3027666 4 months ago
People,start thinking plz - FDR was the worst president ever - HE just executed the idead of the powerfull banking cartell that had the controll over the nations money suplly (The FED isnt federal at all - and manipulations of the economy by signle men occured since earliest times) a nation/government should have controll over its money supply,not so over the economy as a whole !that just deprives the people,makes em lazy and creativless
MrKiljeaden89 4 months ago
You American have no memory. Roosevelt saved your country with "socialized" ways. You could have saved your economy again in 2008 with a New New Deal. They didn't tried to speak about "liberals, gay, communist were destroying your country". They were doing things RATIONALY. Your lack of memory will kill you someday.
MenwithHill 5 months ago
FDR was a true liberal social democrat, the reason we are in the mess we are today is because we have strayed too far away from his ideas about liberty, equality and fraternity - neoliberalism, globalization and deindustrialization are all connected and is what has led to our economic turmoil.
Market fundamentalism and laissez-faire have failed, the Panics of 1873, 1893 and the crashes of 1907 and 1929 showed us what happens when markets are allowed to run amok.
atosafi1 5 months ago 3
civil war in this country probably would have been a possibility if FDR hadn't become president. Elsewhere in the world, economic instability was leading to dictatorships and internal strife
koboy1996 7 months ago
A very great man of bold vision and courage. He stook to his principles and wasn't swayed by the powerful political interests of the rebublicans, FDR ranks up there with Lincoln and Jefferson!!
greg4161 7 months ago 6
@greg4161 This Government has been manipulating the emotions of the masses ever since!!!
REASONINFUSION 7 months ago
FDR is the reason we are all here still. he was a wonderful man for his time.
tonyrosam 10 months ago 13
@tonyrosam STFU are you dumb? FDR extended the great depression, Germany, Italy and Japan got us out of the Great Depression by starting WW2. Social Security is bankrupt and totally unconstitutional and on top of that he started this whole entitlement idea where we think we are entitled to health care and money. You're totally retarded and I cant believe how stupid you are.
cwood4ever 1 month ago
@cwood4ever Social Security is bankrupt? I know reality infuriates rightwingers (as does anything Christian like helping the least among us), but Social Security has ALWAYS operated with a SURPLUS!
It's interesting that initiating programs to HELP people not only pay for themselves, but CREATE A SURPLUS! Rightwingers want to obliterate ANYTHING that helps Americans (Social Security, Medicare, Healthcare) and push for malevolence like Iraq & endless war - the results there speak for themselves
HNK222 1 month ago
@cwood4ever Social Security generally gives you what you put into it. It's a very important program, even Ayn Rand made use of it. Judging by your lack of composition skills and articulation, I'm guessing that you're no college graduate. Why, then, would you oppose working class interests? And don't give me any "gubmint dependence" bullshit. The main proponents of such rhetoric (business leaders) are more Gov't dependent than anyone else. Who do you think enforces their property rights?
setherman412 1 month ago
@setherman412 No social security doesnt give you what you put into it, ever heard of inflation. Its a ponzi scheme.
cwood4ever 1 month ago
@cwood4ever Bull. Social Security Guarantees the person with money that they put into it. You want to know what actually is a ponzi scheme is? Private insurance. They can take as much of your money as they want and then deny you coverage when you need it. That is a ponzi scheme. Social Security doesn't do that.
visini14 1 month ago
@visini14 "social security guarantees the person money" in inflated dollars and you cant give it to your kids when you die. You go to JAIL for opting out. Insurance is voluntary and you wont go to jail for not buying it. Learn some facts child on what a ponzi scheme is. Besides insurance and social security are two different things. You don't get SS for insurance. Its a retirement deal, that's bankrupt, steal peoples money after they die and f course wont be there for me in 50 years.
cwood4ever 1 month ago
@cwood4ever You are totally lying. My mother's father died, and my grandmother and my mom both get some oh his Social Security money and benefits. That happens until their social security runs out, or the mother dies too and they have to chose between the two social security plans. That goes the same with spouses. They should go to jail, because it is tax evasion. Social Security isn't a Ponzi Scheme, Private insurance is. Social Security guarantees to give the money that a person
visini14 1 month ago
@cwood4ever put in it, private insurance doesn't. That is is ponzi scheme. You are an idiot if you think that SS is bankrupt. It has a 2.6 Trillion surplus. Social Security has and is still running on a surplus. The Government said that it is, so they can cut benefits and spend more of the SS money. Again you are so wrong. SS can pay 100% of benefits through 2037 and at worst 80% of all benefits after than indefinably.
visini14 1 month ago
@visini14 keep thinking that but are are 14 trillion in debt. We borrow our money from the next generation, China and other nations. The game is up. Redistribution of wealth doesnt work. I would much rather keep the money I put into SS and invest it my self or just save it in a savings account. I dont need daddy government "saving" my money in inflated dollars. You should go get an education it will help you not look like such a retard. There is no surplus there is no saving period.
cwood4ever 1 month ago
@cwood4ever Your comment has no point. It is just a bunch of things in one. When you get an education where you can actually stay on one topic, and not jump around like a spastic retard, I will respond. Until then, go fuck yourself, because none of what you said made any sense.
visini14 1 month ago
@visini14 thats right walk away, you cant answer basic truths and you're forced to face the facts that you have been bad to in the biggest ponzi scheme. Thanks for the win bitch
cwood4ever 1 month ago
@cwood4ever I am not walking away you dumb ass. Your comment made absolutely no sense, and had no point to it. You are an idiot, and I pity you and you mother for having you. You are pathetic if you actually think that you "won" because you in no way won, because you made no sense. Dumb ass.
visini14 1 month ago
@visini14 It would only make no sense to someone with a childish mind who wants others to take care of him. How does I will save for my own retirement and not allow the government to steal my money not make sense? I win bye bye
cwood4ever 1 month ago
@cwood4ever Oh you win at having the most uncompromisable comment on Youtube, but in a debate, you wouldn't even get in the top 100K. You are pathetic.
visini14 1 month ago
@visini14 How about instead of being a child and just attacking me you destroy my arguments? Oh wait you cant because you cant even comprehend such complex things. You cant even follow along with small paragraphs that I have been getting plenty of reply's that others understand. Go watch American Idol or something and let the men discuss real issues.
cwood4ever 1 month ago
@cwood4ever No I can't argue with something that makes no sense. You are an idiot. You actually think that that comment made sense? Yeah maybe to other idiots like yourself. Oh and by that way I hate reality tv shows. Funny how you think that I like them, just because I called you out from being an idiot, which you are.
visini14 1 month ago
@visini14 Youre scared, you cant even think.
cwood4ever 1 month ago
@cwood4ever God, you are an idiot. You can't even form a comprehensible argument. You are pathetic.
visini14 1 month ago
@scoves9484 yes and I assume that the GI bill that your father or grandfather got when they returned from the war which allowed them to educate themselves and get a good job so that now u can buy huge ugly big tvs had nothing to do with goverment policies.... gimme a break individualist!
less01 11 months ago
It's a damn shame that Roosevelt couldn't be President in these days. I'm sure he could fix Reagan's mess.
SaintGilgamesh 1 year ago 4
@scoves9484 You must have not read past that 11th grade textbook then.
RedSandStudios 1 year ago
Any of you saying that FDR, or Hoover caused the Depression are clearly not very wise or well educated about this period in American History.
The Wall Street Crash sparked the Great Depression. It stopped the cycle of prosperity from the 1920's in its tracks and led to a cycle of poverty. Americas economic boom was doomed to go bust. Intervention from Government helped RECOVER the American economy. But it took WWII and the armament industry to completely turn the economy around again.
968BabyJane 1 year ago
@968BabyJane Exactly. It was the lack of government control that caused the depression. We let the economy run around like a chicken with its head cut off, and it finally collapsed.
RedSandStudios 1 year ago
@scoves9484: Jobs created by the government cost more than they produce? wtf? How much did the TVA cost vs what it did for commerce? And how much of the cost was payroll that went back into the economy? Your statement is just plain ignorant. Many of the projects FDR started are still reaping commercial benefits today, decades after the expenditures.
dLimboStick 1 year ago
Many of the comments here show the ignorance of history and of economics, and the romantization of a man who helped to destroy the economy, which led to the mass misery of people for another 7 years. The New Deal is the greatest American testament of the 20th century that free markets are the only viable way to produce a higher standard of living for the common man. Why do people still believe in tribal planned economies? The notion is so silly yet such a detriment to actual people.
Ipetratz 1 year ago
This is pro-FDR propaganda.
jgolowka 1 year ago
Do you know what i dont understand, that despite hardships, which are unbearable for some i understand, everyone demands immediate relief on every problem that appears. why can't one choose to accept that changing a serious problem takes time and why some aren't aware that this time will have draw backs and losses for some. almost everyone doesnt accept this, from politicians that think they can change the world to the poorest man
LoganThomsen 1 year ago
The New Deal was successful in that it created a Safety Net for people when times were tough. But it focused too much on Empowering Government and not people when they were down. And it created a "Culture of Dependency".
FRSFreeState 1 year ago
obama raw deal for americans. bail out rich bankers and nothing for the working poor. another puppet of the clintons and kennedys = mass mexican immigration, money that is worthless, debt larger than bush.
Rico8458 1 year ago
ye understand aim from a little place
0000romano 1 year ago
More like the Jew deal. Hahahaha!
redfoxbennaton 1 year ago
both new deals were pure shit and have only been made out to be a good thing by the media and the white house.
surrealnumber 1 year ago
the new deal caused 13% unemployment, afterwards when hoover was prez and introduced lower taxes, unemployment went from 13% to 2%. Go figure, progressive tactics fuck america, and then conservatives come to the rescue.
grunt11b 1 year ago
Didn't FDR make TWO New Deals? How do I differentiate between the two. Hannity said the New Deal made the depression last longer. I guess I need to get a little more scholarly but I'm feeling tired at the moment. It would be kind of awesome to have a time machine.
nevaseenamancry 1 year ago 3
On the progressive side, noone expects you to learn right from wrong now, you can wait until the country is destroyed if you please. Idget.
grunt11b 1 year ago
@grunt11b I fail to see how this comment of yours directly relates with mine. You are speaking in tongues as far as I'm concerned. You are making commenting indirectly... not saying what you mean. Shoot from the hip once in a while, dude. Show some fucking balls.
nevaseenamancry 1 year ago
The New Deal put the US on the right track but unfortunately we repeated the same mistakes they did during the 20s. And that is excessive spending and speculation in the stocks. Some people will just never learn.
BerPolo 2 years ago 25
You're somewhat right. The new deal provided temporary relief, but the spending artificially inflated the market leading to future bubbles and recession
mrhockey321 1 year ago
Right track how? At what point of it where we on the right track? At no point did America prosper from it, dumbass.
grunt11b 1 year ago
@BerPolo
You're right about that. As disastrous as the New Deal was, we have not learned that government intervention destroys the free market and creates depressions. Hoover and FDR's intervention into the economy was unprecedented and resulted in a Great Depression, so I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that government intervention is to blame for the great depression, SINCE THE ONLY TIME IT WAS TRIED IT RESULTED IN A GREAT DEPRESSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bUT YOU'LL NEVER LEARN THAT WILL YA??
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal This is one of the few comments that makes any sense. The New Deal was a disaster and we're repeating the folly of socialistic intervention in the twenty-first century.
samadamspatriot 1 year ago
@BerPolo right - let the government handle economy, the people are too stupid for it anyway.
MrKiljeaden89 4 months ago
I like how people here are saying the New Deal did nothing. It's sad, because I think they don't understand what economics is. It's not the flow of money, it's how humans control their surroundings. This includes infastructure and development, and people don't realize that America's infastructure was failing at a rapid rate, and the New Deal brought it back. The 2ed War helping things, but it was hardly the only thing that brought us out of the Depression.
rocknrollguru23 2 years ago 4
@rocknrollguru23 how ineffably sad: the II W W brought you out of Depression...
stronzoassoluto 2 years ago
@stronzoassoluto Not quite. The infastrucutre of the United States was crumbling, thus the US was losing physical economy. I'm sure the New Deal was not good if you were an investment banker (who were causing alot of the problems) but if you were a steel worker with no heat or electricity, then i'm sure it was really good. Besides, the USA could not have entered WW II if not for the New Deal.
rocknrollguru23 2 years ago
@rocknrollguru23 this is an interesting topic. I'd like to to discuss it further. Are there any aspects that could be compered on what is going on now?
stronzoassoluto 2 years ago
@stronzoassoluto Well, Glass-Steagall was repealed in the 90's, and that was a huge mistake. The two situations are somewhat similar, however our government this time decided to give money out to social programs and banks instead of creating any sort of protectionist policies or developing infastructure.
rocknrollguru23 2 years ago 3
@rocknrollguru23
Creepy.
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
can some one pls explain me what roosevelt said in his speech? Didn´t really understood it...
gigahou 2 years ago
Listen..ill put it in the plainest terms possible ....if you help the niggas you get shot..Lincoln ...Kennedy pure examples..help the little guy ignore the stat qup get killed....Listen to Stat Quo do what they say ..live long..
rockdiga 2 years ago
Thru suicides, starvation, anarchy, my grandfolks generation learned that extremist pursuit of pure laissez faire was a Failed Experiment--jusr as Soviet Communism was!. Extremism, superstition--dont work!
FDR saved them from starvation--by discarding superstitious fear of moderation.
Their generation loved FDR as a hero who saved their lives from Republican DO-NOTHING Hoover.
starnja2009 2 years ago
I can't believe America turns down the idea of social health care so quickly, so naive you are.Oh, you don't want to pay for others surgeries do you?I'd rather pay taxes each month and get a surgery through tax payers money then pay$50,000 all at once.I don't know about you but I can't afford it. Canada, France, Britain, countries with social health care are way better off and also have a lower death toll in hospitals and medical incidents, but I guess you can't change everyone's mind.
Jmashed 2 years ago
surgery isnt inevitable
lucky7monkey 2 years ago
Oh yes, you have the truth...
digibotdotcom 2 years ago
The depression was saved by the first world war.
Whether or not you want to see Roosevelt's attempts as a failure or success, put aside your political beliefs and look at the facts.
missygreendaychimp 2 years ago
The great depression occurred about 11 years after the first world war. FDR was lifting us out of the depression but then he got scared by the amount of resistance he was getting from the rich business men and cut back spending. This slowed recovery but then by Dec 7th 1941 we were well on our way out of the depression. Since the late 1960's all of FDR's regulations have been dismantled, this has led to the shrinking of the middle class and the enrichment of the top 1% of Americans.
kevin19713 2 years ago 31
@kevin19713 lolololololol except unemployment remained higher than it is now until the late 30's. All his programs did nothing but prolong the depression. Remember that depression in 1920 after WWI? Oh right you don't because it didnt take over 6 years to recover from. Why? because Harding did the opposite of what Roosevelt would do in the not so far future
oJKBo 1 year ago
@kevin19713
Or the truth is that FDR took Hoovers interventionist policies and created the Great Depression. Every other economic downturn in American history had not lasted more than 18 months,until the government decided it could fix the problem in 1929.If you think we aren't still suffering from FDR's moronic policies, well look no further than Fannie Mae, ground zero for the current crisis. Or the $50Trillion underfunded SS and Medicare which will be the next big crisis. FDR created all
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@kevin19713 FDR didn't do shit to lift us out of the Depression. On the eve of WWII, unemployment was as high as it was at the onset of the Depression.
samadamspatriot 1 year ago
@kevin19713 but the san thing and the horrible thing is that americans dont believe that because..... the reps have made a better progapandistic campaign! and the dems are cowards who are afraid of being called socialists as if that were something bad
less01 11 months ago
@kevin19713 Except there was a recession in 1920 that didn't turn into a depression due to different govt. policies. The New Deal only prolonged the depression. There was another depression in '37. It was WWII that got us out, not the new deal. Please educate yourself
tjohn1986 11 months ago
@tjohn1986 And how do you think WWII got us out of the depression? BY MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON WAR MATERIAL. The double dip depression of 37 was due to a pullback in spending and an attempt to balance the budget urged by the Republicans in Congress.
enkelin32 6 months ago
@enkelin32 Hmm NO it wasn't govt spending, it was the demand created by the war, and it was payed by different countries long before US even entered the war.
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work........" - Henry Morgenthau, May 1939
(you can look up the whole quote as I cannot fit it here).
If war creates prosperity, we should just blow shit up and pay people to rebuilt it, and repeat the process.
Thanks for playing.
tjohn1986 6 months ago 3
@tjohn1986 We entered the war in 1941. As far as government spending, google " Deficit spending 1920 until 2011 chart" and you will see just how much government spending was done for WWII. Yes paying people to make things to be blown up (in another country) DOES stimulate the economy. That is total demand that is never satiated.. You are not nearly the historian or economist that you think you are.
enkelin32 6 months ago
@enkelin32 Fail again dude. While you're at google why don't you google the tax rates through 50s and 60s. Deficit spending isn't FREE. People paid through their nose for what the govt borrowed.
tjohn1986 6 months ago
@tjohn1986 True in 1944 the TOP tax rate was 94%. People used to have to PAY when the country went to war. That was what always happened, The first income tax was instituted by Abraham Lincoln and then repealed after the end of the civil war. ONLY to idiot Republicans can the fight 2 wars on borrowed money. There also used to be many different tax rates not just 3. You paid the top rate if you made millions of dollars, not if you made 150K like now. Rich people laugh at you DUDE.
enkelin32 6 months ago
@enkelin32 That babble made no sense. Keep it to the point and try again.
tjohn1986 6 months ago
@tjohn1986 Yeah but don't act like you're at the top of the margin paying for those taxes. IF the wealthy were taxed it was because they could afford it. Boston merchant Edward Filene. "Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me?"Filene asked."I took all of it from them."
TheORGANEZIZED 4 months ago
@TheORGANEZIZED If that's the case the same rule should apply to you. You can AFFORD to give most of your money away. You can do with food, clothes and other basic subsistence.
tjohn1986 4 months ago
I think you mean Second World War.
KanisTeacher 2 years ago
sorry ment second.
missygreendaychimp 2 years ago
All the New Deal did was give the government more control over the people. In other words, defying the Constitution.
He used that moment to do what Obama is trying to do now. He used the recession as an excuse and Congress let go through.
Socialist ass hole is all he is.
mankyman6 2 years ago
im sick of people who have no knowledge on history and what the new deal was. If the new deal didn't worck then how come the american economy reached the same height as it had in the 1920's by 1937?
(cont)
avengemm9dog 2 years ago
(cont)
And i am so sick of people who compare the Bailout of today with the New Deal. The New Deal created State jobs to fill the void of un-employment left by the Great Depresion, citizens were free to accept or refuse such jobs which is the proper role of the government. Once the economy recovered such jobs were elimnated, because when given the choice between state or private jobs people will normaly chosse private. The bailout is just tax payer money to save compaines that deserve to fail.
avengemm9dog 2 years ago
The New Deal barely did anything to help, sure it provided jobs but they weren't well paying and thus not providing the people the thought that they can safely go out and buy stuff again. That's how you get out of a recession, you have to buy more but people are too afraid to do that because they don't want to go broke.
All it did was give more control to the government for a limited period of time which was unconstitutional.
mankyman6 2 years ago
YUP!
USMCDEVILDOGZ 2 years ago
Its not because of the stock market crash, it's because of the great depression!
1Jikko1 2 years ago
If you believe WWII bumped the United States out of a depression, then you believe in Keynesian economics; the principle that investment (injections) into the economy should equal savings (leakage). Government spending on war efforts, as well as US focus on economic war efforts reset the equilibrium.
uteballa20 2 years ago
FDR was one of America's best Presidents
ImperatorZor 3 years ago
Yes, only to handling the war though.
bibblemethis 2 years ago
The New Deal was economically disasterous. It had prolonged the great depression for about 6 years.
Ipetratz 3 years ago
This is an argument I hear often and there is a gigantic fallacy with it. I've never had anyone properly explain to me why deficit spending for infrastructure is disastrous for the economy but deficit spending for war is what pulled us out of the great depression. If anything to me it just proves the New Deal wasn't big enough.
Ninjaslippa 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
shut da fuck up. dumbass did u even realize wat i did.
gearheadCiViC07 3 years ago
I understood perfectly what you said.
"Shut the fuck up", not da. Learn to spell.
Maybe you're a Nazi then if you think that trivializing them is so great?
Ipetratz 3 years ago
Oh the Nazi thing. Disregard that, I was thinking of the wrong person. Sorry about that.
Ipetratz 3 years ago
All those lazy democrats care about is having "jobs" and feeding their "families" and keeping a "roof" over their heads! What about the integrity of the free market? Doesn't anyone care about that anymore?
mmysama 3 years ago 3
everybody line up to get your RFID chip, Get em while they're Hot.
masterjoejoe 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, I'm pretty sure FDR wanted to destroy democracy and America.
snoopyflick 3 years ago
Just like Obama does!
USMCDEVILDOGZ 2 years ago 4
we can see the ugly side of humanity in action as i type
theta9999999theta 3 years ago
You're missing Friedman's theme, and what the real point of Principles of Economics classes is. One that not many students seem to get. He is providing an extreme example of free-market economics. Clearly it will never happen, but it is a base to start policy decisions. If we can't understand highly stylized artificial examples, we have no chance of understanding the world.
Signed, Graduate Student in Economics
moonraker416 3 years ago
You know... Some months ago, all you could see in this kind of videos were many neo-conservative Friedman fans saying that Roosevelt was a dictator, that a free-market is a solution to all problems, that egotism makes our world better everyday, that regulation, federal policies, healthcare or care at all represented the face of the devil... I'm glad to see changes. I'm glad to see people think after we've seen the results of decades of that policies.
DionysosEleutherios 3 years ago
Bush and Greenspan set out with a mission to increase home ownership by artificially lowering interest rates far below market level to an absurd 1%, and using other government instruments, i.e. The Federal Housing Administration, Fannie and Freddie, various pieces of legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act to encourage and even force lenders to make risky loans they would not have otherwise made. Housing Bubble. Financial Crisis. Economic collapse. NOT FREE MARKET!
LastTrueLiberal 3 years ago 2
this is no joke...we need to dig up F.D.R. and get us out of all this mess were in., going to be a long hard road.
brotherslope 3 years ago 3
George W. Bu$h should dig up Hoover and apologize to him.
BarneyFife82 3 years ago
This documentary changed my world view, the only time socialism was alowed to properly function was under Roosevelt, I can only hope we get a similar policy to the new deal to hoist us out of the present troubles.
akeefe 3 years ago 2
The 700 billion bail out is real similar to the "new deal".But lets hope that it's as effective as the "new deal".
cutedude22 3 years ago
Yeah lets hope this is the end of the freemarket madness. Roosevelt wasn't perfect but its a start lol. My dad always winds me up about all this, he thinks that this is it, there will be no change in my lifetime (im 22!). I hate this pessimism, something like this simply has to change things, however I don't see strong polititians at the moment, no one we can hav any real faith in.....
akeefe 3 years ago
I like free-market and private enterprise. Its better in almost most solutions.
timbosforporn 3 years ago
The New Deal spent government money building infrasstructure which in the end are investments that give back more revenue than they took to build not to mention they created jobs during a time when their were few.
The 700 billion dollar bailout gives money to the Bankers that created this mess and does not guarantee jobs for anyone or help the country move in any one direction.
The bailout is just preventing the dog from shaking out the fleas.
jizzmonger 3 years ago 4
Only the bankers aren't the only ones who created this mess. The Federal Reserve System did that. When you create "money" from nowhere and artificially lower interest rates, money becomes less valuable. Fact. And the New Deal didn't fix anything. All it did was provide a temporary illusion of prosperity, causing more long-term problems. The jobs it created weren't permanent careers, but temporary projects that were over after six months, leaving the people unemployed again, thus the illusion.
savesanotherday 3 years ago 2
Whatever you say kid.
Clearly you know more on this topic than anyone else since you just googled it yesterday.
jizzmonger 3 years ago
Comment removed
dueyv9 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what the hell is a jizzmonger?
dueyv9 3 years ago 2
Haha. Yeah. I did just google that the day before. I have no idea what I'm talking about. FUCK OFF. Wanna try me? Look up Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, whatever. I've studied economics. Do you even know what causes inflation or what the Laffer curve is? How about the Federal funds rate? I do. I can explain it in dumbass terms if you want me too. I'm tired of little bleeding hearts listening to the media and their liberal history teachers instead of researching facts. I'm no expert, though.
savesanotherday 3 years ago 4
@savesanotherday Facts in Politics can be manipulated in too many ways to consider them facts.
The experts of psychology at the highest level are far too good to look for facts. You would have to have access at their level and they know that.
I am not trying to argue with you though! I don't have anything wrong with you, but I just wanted to express my views as well, whether they are correct or not. There are more people that think they know than actually do because of media propaganda.
jyoung0000 1 year ago
@savesanotherday
Free market economics is fine reasoning, it's quite entrancing, but it's just reasoning. It's not factual, it's speculative, praxeology, not empirical.
You can call them bleeding hearts, but they are just reacting emotionally to the empirical conditions. There is nothing wrong with reacting like a human being to the maltreatment of other human beings.
Jcolinsol 1 year ago 2
@Jcolinsol Agreed. In one of my first economy lessons in uni my professor (a free markets enthusiast) specified that the models studied are done so as if they were "ideal markets" and that no market was "ideal" because to be so all the market operators need the same level of power and that is impossible. Look at the job market...can anyone say that the labourer has the same power as the one offering work? Or the big supermarkets versus small retail?
greenday1978 1 year ago
@greenday1978
Well, I don't think that freemarket advocates ignore disparities in economic power, they have a more fluid conception of it, because they take changes over time into account.
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
@Jcolinsol When I say power I do not mean economical power, I mean pure power. After the black plague, when work became scarcer and land more abundant there was a shift of power from the land owner to the worker. Laws of serfdom could not be upheld because a lord was happy to protect a serf that moved illegally from one domain to his own so the otherday serf could look for a better life and become free.
greenday1978 1 year ago
@Jcolinsol And I would disagree. They do ignore them because they focus on the fact that a free market produces more wealth. But they stop at that. I personally agree that a free market is more eficient but we have to know that there are no ideal markets and that the objective should still be to elevate the quality of life of as many as possible and for that you will need some redistribution of wealth.
greenday1978 1 year ago
@greenday1978
Well, I could have put it more accurately by saying that their idea of the market is less idealistic than others? I wouldn't really say that they are only concerned with increased wealth generation. "Free market" is the conclusion that they draw from their school of praxeology. I think that you are also forgetting that there are no universal objectives, standards, values, or morals, much as I love the idea of egalitarianism. I'm just against force, personally.
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
@Jcolinsol I am sorry Jcolinsol, but that is the fundamental point where we disagree. There are universal values, ideals and even morals, they are a geneticly inbuilt part of being human. And the function of political institutions is their application. Not to do it is to allow ourselves into the chaos of the rule of the strongest. Roosevelt with the New Deal, the social democratic governements in western europe were doing just that.
greenday1978 1 year ago
@greenday1978
Alright, but how do you prove such a thing? How do you prove that there is a universal moral code? If there were, why would we even debate it? Why would we even need to vote? We'd all agree. Remember Hume? You cannot logically derive an ought from an is?
I'm, personally, against institutions. Whether economic or political, and I don't believe that the abolition of institutions will create chaos. Rather, it is the institutions which are creating chaos right now.
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
@Jcolinsol It is the golden rule jcolinsol!
Do to others what you want done to you. Dont do to others what you would not want done to you. Even chimps and dogs have been observed showing a sense of what is fair.
About the institutions, ideally you would have no need for them but men are weak and faulty and as someone (sorry too long out of uni to remember who) sauid: men create states (and its institutions) not to have to obey to other men.
greenday1978 1 year ago
@Jcolinsol We debate it because human beings are complex and there is relativity in the aplication of that morality. The puropose here is not to be angels but to try to be angels. Is it right to eat another human being? No. What if you are a member of the uruguayan rugby team that crashed in the andes and the humans being eaten are your dead colleagues and by eating them you are trying to keep alive untill you are saved? Is it right to steal a loaf of bread? No! but what if...
greenday1978 1 year ago
@greenday1978 There is a right answer but that right answer varies according with circumstances. The key is that you have to aim for the greater good not your egotistical self good but the greater good for all, and of course this can be fuzzy or relatively unclear, and to clarify it you debate and you vote.
greenday1978 1 year ago