FDR on the Financial Crisis

[Dufusyte]

When FDR came to office in 1933, the US economy had hit the bottom of the crash; most banks were closed, and unemployment was at 25%. What was the problem? FDR pointed to the real culprits in his inaugural address:

?Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind?s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

?True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

?The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.?

Source

Looks like we are in a similar situation today: nature is bountiful enough, but the manipulation of finance has been disastrous. The visionless solution is only to lend more and more. But the real solution is to pursue values more noble than mere monetary profit, i.e., a benevolent management of resources for the common good, rather than unfettered greed and exploitation.

 

[Steeplerot]

No one could say it like FDR. Thanks for the quote, hauntingly relevant.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Yeah, let hope we don't repeat the failures of the past by doing what FDR did with the "new deal".

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
No one could say it like FDR. Thanks for the quote, hauntingly relevant.

Or more accurately, nobody could say it like leaders of yesteryear. I fear that if a contemporary president spoke like that the stupid crowd would be stunned like a dear in the headlights. They seem more to talk in crisp, short "mainstreet" manners so that the barely-conscious riff raff have a chance of understanding them.

But digressions aside, it is rather strange that excess credit has squarely placed the world in this mess and it is being seen as the savior.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yeah, let hope we don't repeat the failures of the past by doing what FDR did with the "new deal".

amen. Hoover '36!

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yeah, let hope we don't repeat the failures of the past by doing what FDR did with the "new deal".

Luckily for us the public has rejected the types who rewrite history on subjects like FDR such as you are doing. Reagan and his ilk tried, and failed. Time to move on to what we know works.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Dufusyte
When FDR came to office in 1933, the US economy had hit the bottom of the crash; most banks were closed, and unemployment was at 25%. What was the problem? FDR pointed to the real culprits in his inaugural address:

?Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind?s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

?True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

?The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.?

Source

Looks like we are in a similar situation today: nature is bountiful enough, but the manipulation of finance has been disastrous. The visionless solution is only to lend more and more. But the real solution is to pursue values more noble than mere monetary profit, i.e., a benevolent management of resources for the common good, rather than unfettered greed and exploitation.

aka socialism

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim


aka socialism

How is this Socialism, or do you have a clue what the word means is more the question to you folks who throw the word out whenever someone brings up responsible controls on the market?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yeah, let hope we don't repeat the failures of the past by doing what FDR did with the "new deal".

Sadly I think that's where it's headed. Another massive move to socialism.
:brokenheart:

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Dufusyte
When FDR came to office in 1933, the US economy had hit the bottom of the crash; most banks were closed, and unemployment was at 25%. What was the problem? FDR pointed to the real culprits in his inaugural address:

?Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind?s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

?True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

?The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.?

Source

Looks like we are in a similar situation today: nature is bountiful enough, but the manipulation of finance has been disastrous. The visionless solution is only to lend more and more. But the real solution is to pursue values more noble than mere monetary profit, i.e., a benevolent management of resources for the common good, rather than unfettered greed and exploitation.

aka socialism

When you say it like that, it sounds worse.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yeah, let hope we don't repeat the failures of the past by doing what FDR did with the "new deal".

Sadly I think that's where it's headed. Another massive move to socialism.
:brokenheart:

We have never had socialism in this country. What world are you living in? Eugene Debs lost back in 1920.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yeah, let hope we don't repeat the failures of the past by doing what FDR did with the "new deal".

Luckily for us the public has rejected the types who rewrite history on subjects like FDR such as you are doing. Reagan and his ilk tried, and failed. Time to move on to what we know works.

Uhh... how is opining that FDR's "new deal" was a failure(and part of our problem today even) rewriting history?

Price controls? The abomination called social security? Food production controls? And many other things(some of which were struck down due to their unconstitutionality)


It's a shame that kids these days aren't taught real history. They just seem to get the sugar coated BS...

 

[First]

rofl. You have to be inordinately inane to call FDR's New Deal a failure. The same New Deal that brought the FDIC, SEC and SS, which a vast majority of the public support. Thank god old age alone will render these fringe wingnuts extinct.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


It's a shame that kids these days aren't taught real history. They just seem to get the sugar coated BS...

Because no credible historian buys into that rewrite of history. Only Libertarians with an agenda or desperate Right-wingers.
You a 9/11 truther too?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yeah, let hope we don't repeat the failures of the past by doing what FDR did with the "new deal".

Luckily for us the public has rejected the types who rewrite history on subjects like FDR such as you are doing. Reagan and his ilk tried, and failed. Time to move on to what we know works.

Nobody is rewriting history, only uncovering the propganda we are taught within the public school systems. Many honest economists will admit FDR hurt as much as he helped. He experimented, experiementing equals uncertaintly, uncertaintly means nobody is going to invest and the economy suffers.

If FDR's policies were so great why the recession in 1937-38 years after his reform? Why 20% unemployment in 1940? Why did it take until the early 50's for the stock market to recover to 1929 levels? His crop programs were terrible, put more people in starvation than helped. The TVA forcefully moved many black sharecroppers off their land without adequate compensation.

Now he did do some good as well. The SEC, FDIC, implenting laws allowing unions, a min wage, and more regulating of the financial markets. But the romatic view of FDR's new deal policies are overblown imo.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


It's a shame that kids these days aren't taught real history. They just seem to get the sugar coated BS...

Because no credible historian buys into that rewrite of history. Only Libertarians with an agenda or desperate Right-wingers.
You a 9/11 truther too?

What part of what I stated is not true? Did he not implement price controls? did he not found the ponzi scheme known as social security? Did he not put production controls in place? Did not some of his BS get shot down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional?

Do even have a clue what FDR did?

And no, 9/11 truthers are morons... but so are people who think FDR was great.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


And no, 9/11 truthers are morons... but so are people who think FDR was great.

Both are wingnut conspiracy theories,now we got another revisionist in here(Genx) saying "omg the evil public school system is lying, it is all a conspiracy!"
Grow up and join the real world, lest your party slips farther into obscurity and irrelevance.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


And no, 9/11 truthers are morons... but so are people who think FDR was great.

Both are wingnut conspiracy theories,now we got another revisionist in here(Genx) saying "omg the evil public school system is lying, it is all a conspiracy!"
Grow up and join the real world, lest your party slips farther into obscurity and irrelevance.

You have not answered a single question. Go figure.... Please try to follow along and address what I actually posted instead of projecting and/or ASSuming revisionism.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


And no, 9/11 truthers are morons... but so are people who think FDR was great.

Both are wingnut conspiracy theories,now we got another revisionist in here(Genx) saying "omg the evil public school system is lying, it is all a conspiracy!"
Grow up and join the real world, lest your party slips farther into obscurity and irrelevance.

To be fair, FDR's price controls were an utter failure. But the New Deal wasn't, and you don't need to go to public school to know that. Actually, what's funny is that private schools don't offer any better education than public ones.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


And no, 9/11 truthers are morons... but so are people who think FDR was great.

Both are wingnut conspiracy theories,now we got another revisionist in here(Genx) saying "omg the evil public school system is lying, it is all a conspiracy!"
Grow up and join the real world, lest your party slips farther into obscurity and irrelevance.

To be fair, FDR's price controls were an utter failure. But the New Deal wasn't, and you don't need to go to public school to know that. Actually, what's funny is that private schools don't offer any better education than public ones.

I never mentioned the price controls, The long debunked New Deal extending the depression talking point ) -CATO Institute I think- was what I was speaking of when calling them out on conspiracy theories.
Edit: This conspiracy theory they are bringing up is from the Mises Institute and some kook prof from UCLA.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yeah, let hope we don't repeat the failures of the past by doing what FDR did with the "new deal".

Luckily for us the public has rejected the types who rewrite history on subjects like FDR such as you are doing. Reagan and his ilk tried, and failed. Time to move on to what we know works.

Nobody is rewriting history, only uncovering the propganda we are taught within the public school systems. Many honest economists will admit FDR hurt as much as he helped. He experimented, experiementing equals uncertaintly, uncertaintly means nobody is going to invest and the economy suffers.

If FDR's policies were so great why the recession in 1937-38 years after his reform? Why 20% unemployment in 1940? Why did it take until the early 50's for the stock market to recover to 1929 levels? His crop programs were terrible, put more people in starvation than helped. The TVA forcefully moved many black sharecroppers off their land without adequate compensation.

Now he did do some good as well. The SEC, FDIC, implenting laws allowing unions, a min wage, and more regulating of the financial markets. But the romatic view of FDR's new deal policies are overblown imo.

I asked you this before. Where is your proof that unemployment was 20% in 1940, all other sources point to mid-teens.

 

[Xavier434]

Considering how much less our economy is isolated both by state and by country these days I really do not believe that we can compare the two times very accurately. Things have changed so much and with that we need to formulate some very different and modern solutions. I mean, we can make purchases these days from companies residing in Japan at the click of a button these days. We can hold phone and video conference business meetings that include people from all different corners of the Earth in a matter of minutes.


Also, for you crazy people that equate socialism to nothing but pure evil, all I have to say is that where we are headed is not any kind of dangerous form of socialism at all. A degree of socialism has always existed in this country and we are so far away from reaching dangerous levels that it is not even funny. We will not come close with Obama as Pres either. Get over it already and start reading more history about countries that have succeeded with controlled amounts of socialism rather than just stories about places like Cuba and Venezuela. Socialism is not evil. Too much out of control socialism can be though. Same can be said about too much out of control capitalism....just in a different way.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yeah, let hope we don't repeat the failures of the past by doing what FDR did with the "new deal".

This

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yeah, let hope we don't repeat the failures of the past by doing what FDR did with the "new deal".

Luckily for us the public has rejected the types who rewrite history on subjects like FDR such as you are doing. Reagan and his ilk tried, and failed. Time to move on to what we know works.

Nobody is rewriting history, only uncovering the propganda we are taught within the public school systems. Many honest economists will admit FDR hurt as much as he helped. He experimented, experiementing equals uncertaintly, uncertaintly means nobody is going to invest and the economy suffers.

If FDR's policies were so great why the recession in 1937-38 years after his reform? Why 20% unemployment in 1940? Why did it take until the early 50's for the stock market to recover to 1929 levels? His crop programs were terrible, put more people in starvation than helped. The TVA forcefully moved many black sharecroppers off their land without adequate compensation.

Now he did do some good as well. The SEC, FDIC, implenting laws allowing unions, a min wage, and more regulating of the financial markets. But the romatic view of FDR's new deal policies are overblown imo.

I asked you this before. Where is your proof that unemployment was 20% in 1940, all other sources point to mid-teens.

I will have to conceed that point. I have read the 20% somewhere and it stuck. From all available sources I can find it was 14.6% in 1940. The BLS doesnt go back past 1948.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yeah, let hope we don't repeat the failures of the past by doing what FDR did with the "new deal".

Luckily for us the public has rejected the types who rewrite history on subjects like FDR such as you are doing. Reagan and his ilk tried, and failed. Time to move on to what we know works.

Nobody is rewriting history, only uncovering the propganda we are taught within the public school systems. Many honest economists will admit FDR hurt as much as he helped. He experimented, experiementing equals uncertaintly, uncertaintly means nobody is going to invest and the economy suffers.

If FDR's policies were so great why the recession in 1937-38 years after his reform? Why 20% unemployment in 1940? Why did it take until the early 50's for the stock market to recover to 1929 levels? His crop programs were terrible, put more people in starvation than helped. The TVA forcefully moved many black sharecroppers off their land without adequate compensation.

Now he did do some good as well. The SEC, FDIC, implenting laws allowing unions, a min wage, and more regulating of the financial markets. But the romatic view of FDR's new deal policies are overblown imo.

I asked you this before. Where is your proof that unemployment was 20% in 1940, all other sources point to mid-teens.

I will have to conceed that point. I have read the 20% somewhere and it stuck. From all available sources I can find it was 14.6% in 1940. The BLS doesnt go back past 1948.

So his policies reduced unemployment 40%. That's not failure.