I suppose you tamper with a car every time you drive it? 
Posted on 10/09/2003 6:22:38 AM PDT by aculeus
They say "truth will out" but sometimes it takes a long time. For more than half a century, it has been a "well-known fact" that President Franklin D. Roosevelt got us out of the Great Depression of the 1930s. That view was never pervasive among economists, and even J.M. Keynes -- a liberal icon -- criticized some of FDR's policies as hindering recovery from the depression.
Only now has a book been written in language that non-economists can understand which argues persuasively that the policies of the Roosevelt administration actually prolonged the depression and made it worse. That book is "FDR's Folly" by Jim Powell. It is very readable, factual and insightful -- and is endorsed by two Nobel Prizewinning economists.
If the word "folly" seems a little dismissive, read the book first. Someone described FDR's trust-busting Assistant Attorney General Thurman Arnold as being like one of the Marx brothers who went into government by mistake. That description would apply to many of the others around FDR, including his much-vaunted "brain-trust" of presumptuous and self-righteous people.
It is painfully obvious that President Roosevelt himself had no serious understanding of economics, any more than his Republican predecessor, Herbert Hoover, had. The difference was that Roosevelt had boundless self-confidence and essentially pushed some of the misconceptions of President Hoover to their logical extreme.
The grand myth for decades was that Hoover was unwilling to use the powers of government to come to the aid of the people during the Great Depression but that Roosevelt was more caring and did. In reality, both presidents represented a major break with the past by casting the federal government in the role of rescuer of the economy in its distress.
Scholarly studies of the history of these two administrations have in recent years come to see FDR's New Deal as Herbert Hoover's policies writ large and in bolder strokes.
Those who judge by intentions may say that this was a good thing. But those who judge by results point out that none of the previous depressions -- during which the federal government essentially did nothing -- lasted anywhere near as long as the depression in which the federal government decided that it had to "do something."
In "FDR's Folly," author Jim Powell spells out just what the Roosevelt administration did and what consequences followed. It tried to raise farm prices by destroying vast amounts of produce -- at a time when hunger was a serious problem in the United States. It imposed minimum wage rates that priced unskilled labor out of jobs, at a time of massive unemployment.
Behind both policies was the belief that what was needed was more purchasing power and that this could be achieved by government policies to raise the prices received by farmers and workers. But prices do not automatically translate into greater purchasing power, unless people buy as much at higher prices as they would at lower prices -- which they seldom do.
Then there were the monetary authorities contracting the money supply in the midst of the biggest depression in history -- when the economy was showing some signs of revival, until their monetary contraction touched off another big downturn.
With policy after policy and program after program, "FDR's Folly" traces the high hopes and disastrous consequences. It would be funny, like the Keystone cops running into one another and falling down, except that millions of people were in economic desperation while this farce was being played out in Washington.
Perhaps worse than any specific policy under FDR was the atmosphere of uncertainty generated by incessant new experiments. Billions of dollars of investment were needed to create millions of jobs for the unemployed. But investors were reluctant to risk their money while the rules of the game were constantly being changed in Washington, amid strident anti-business rhetoric.
Some of the people who most admired and almost worshipped FDR -- poor people and blacks, for example -- were hurt the most by amateurish tinkering with the economy by Roosevelt's New Deal administration. This book is an education in itself, both in history and in economics. It is also a warning of what can happen when leaders are chosen for their charm, charisma and rhetoric.
©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
I suppose you tamper with a car every time you drive it?
I listen to lots of shows (Ingraham, Prager, Medved, Hewitt, etc.) and haven't heard (or missed) this writer or discussion of this book.
Surprise, surprise.
You think Hewitt (in particular) is going to have a libertarian on his program to badmouth the neocon hero FDR?
That'll be the day.
Some believe Lincoln was killed, not because of a lone gunman from the south wanted revenge, but because he was the first president to try to pay for a war with "congressional money". The bankers were all set to finance both the North and the South, when Abe decided the rates were too high. So, he printed his own money called "Greenbacks". Thats where the term comes from. When he was killed, Johnson stopped the printing of the Greenbacks and borrowed the money like he was suposed to, from the central banks. Another was, Kennedy was printing money when he was shot, and Johnson stopped that toot sweet post mortem. A good, but tedious read about this is "The Unseen Hand, A conspiritorial hisory of the world." It gives the "Big Picture" of world history. One of the best reads in my library is a book written by a Democrat Rep from Ill. in 1940. He wittnessed the FDR debacle from congress and wrote about it. The book is "Smoke Screen" by Samuell B. Pettengill. He compares FDR with what went on in Hitler's Germany. He speaks of the "stacking of the courts" because FDR had to fight even his own party to get his radical ideas through. He compares the CCC,NRA, and all the other alphabet soup titles with the 3rd Reich. This has always been one of my quirks. When people talk of Hitler, they speak of "right wing" this and "conservative" that, when in fact, Hitler was a socialist. NAZI even means National Socialist party in english, but somehow that is missed by Democrats. Remember Volkswagon, the peoples car? Goverment takeovers of industrial production is not conservative, it is the 1st step in socialization. Maybe Ann Coulter will write about that someday and clear it all up. When I call Democrats socialists and communists, it's not hyperbole.
I'm not saying I believe everything I read, but there are many facets to history that are not discussed. A good comparison, I think, is of the "magician". He gets you to look at his left hand, while his right is in your pocket. The media, pundits, and talking heads, get you involved in one subject, while all the time, setting you up for the fall. I don't trust anybody.
They still do, incredibly! Despite the huge number of millionaires and billionaires who run the Democrat Party (Bill Gates, the Kennedys, the Rockefellers and George Soros as examples) they still somehow are viewed as "the party of the people." Horse whoopee. Old ideas die hard, especially with the complicit media.
The money thing about Lincoln and Kennedy is very interesting. The thing about government is that all of the successful ones strive to strengthen the nation. There is no way to be a government who sits around on philosophical ideas while enemies are all around. A nation can not exist in this world without being strong economically and governments are all about self preservation. People who say the constitution doesn't allow the government to do such and such drive me nuts.
biblewonk:Guys, Besides, Government is "so good" at controlling the economy to "help" the people. < / SARCASM > Peace and love, George.
In reality, both presidents represented a major break with the past by casting the federal government in the role of rescuer of the economy in its distress.
To suggest that this is not a priority of the government is either stupidity or a lie. Ofcourse the Federal government should do what it can to help the economy.
-------------------In "FDR's Folly," author Jim Powell spells out just what the Roosevelt administration did and what consequences followed. It tried to raise farm prices by destroying vast amounts of produce -- at a time when hunger was a serious problem in the United States. It imposed minimum wage rates that priced unskilled labor out of jobs, at a time of massive unemployment.
Behind both policies was the belief that what was needed was more purchasing power and that this could be achieved by government policies to raise the prices received by farmers and workers. But prices do not automatically translate into greater purchasing power, unless people buy as much at higher prices as they would at lower prices -- which they seldom do.
==========================================
My inclination would be, strange as it may seem, to find a way to communicate these important economic truths while somehow preserving enough of the FDR myth to make people comfortable. It's the Dale Carnegie in me. If I had more time, I'd think up an example. But trying to totally shoot down the myth of FDR, imo, will be resisted for emotional reasons. Better to find a way to make those emotions work for us, even if it means fudging things a bit.
LOL! She sounds like quite a character.....
LQ
The Hillary-lovers could stand a reality check here, too. Smartest woman in the world my cracked ass. If she's so brilliant and can think on her feet so well, why isn't she allowed to do real press conferences or interviews?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.