Best Presidents of the U.S.

[Sibirsky]

There needs to be a poll.

But FDR is definitely one of the worst.

He locked up innocent Japanese people for no reason, and prolonged the Great Depression. Hard to top that.

That's debatable. His New Deal programs alleviated the unemployment that occurred during the Great Depression, and while we'll never know if he really extended it (since World War 2 effectively ended it) making assumptions like that is pretty dangerous.

I'll agree that locking up the Japanese was ridiculous and deplorable, though.

I am not assuming.

Smoot-Hawley started it, but the New Deal exacerbated it.

WWII did not end the Great Depression. It reduced unemployment by sending men to Europe to fight, and the women to the factories, to build tanks and planes.

Production grew, GDP grew. The standard of living fell. That is not a recovery.

We used resources to build weapons and destroy them. Not to manufacture consumer goods that improve people's lives. We rationed food.

Now, don't get me wrong. The government, and most importantly the people, supported the war. Wars back then were financed by war bonds sold to the public. And the public bought. There was no mandate. The public was pissed about Pearl Harbor and upset about the Nazis in Europe.

Try financing Iraq with war bonds.

My point is, to look at a growing GDP (which did not grow the entire time either) and claim a recovery is wrong. We must look at the standard of living. It did not start to improve, until FDR was out of office and the war was over.

What is he getting credit for?

And those are the major points. There are many more smaller ones.

[Sibirsky]

That's debatable. His New Deal programs alleviated the unemployment that occurred during the Great Depression, and while we'll never know if he really extended it (since World War 2 effectively ended it) making assumptions like that is pretty dangerous.

I'll agree that locking up the Japanese was ridiculous and deplorable, though.

Also destroying food just to raise the price is kind've...
...
Well it's retarded, to be blunt.

That is not blunt, that is mild.

[Agymnum]

Also destroying food just to raise the price is kind've...
...
Well it's retarded, to be blunt.

I'll agree the AAA was a fairly shitty program, but that's one among many good ones (WPA, CCC, PWA, TVA, NRA, etc). And AAA #2 (Soil Conservation Bill) finally got it right with crop rotation and letting fields lie fallow instead of incessantly plowing away every year (which led to the Dust Bowl).

The best thing I can say about AAA was that it tried to help farmers by raising prices. That's it - other than having good intentions, it was pretty fucking retarded.

[Forster Keys]

Three letters. FDR.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Like I said in another thread, every Presidents has their ups and downs. The Abraham Lincoln suspended several civil rights, including habeas corpus, used the lack of the Southern states to push through every program he ever wanted with impunity, and allowed his wife to fritter away large amounts of taxpayer money on a lavish lifestyle and decorating the White House.

Suspending civil rights on a massive scale is just a 'down' like any other disagreeable action?
...
Something seems wrong about that.

(this isn't directed at you necessarily) I've noticed an odd trend in folks to forgive civil rights violations for little real reason but a feeling of ideological commonality or respect when it comes to US presidents. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus is oftentimes waved off, FDRs imprisonment of an entire group of people based off ancestry is glossed over as a 'downer' of an otherwise great Presidency.

This is especially odd when similar activities by other presidents (Jackson's Indian Removal program, Reagan's interventions in foreign countries in support of human rights abusing governments, et. al.) are usually brought to the forefront rather readily (hell, Jackson even suffers from this glossing over to a good extent).

However illogical it may be, I should point out that these deplorable acts that get glossed over were part of greater efforts (Civil War, WWII) that are seen as noble ones nowadays.

[Agymnum]

I am not assuming.

Smoot-Hawley started it, but the New Deal exacerbated it.

How exactly did the New Deal make the Great Depression worse. I'm not measuring by GDP but by employment rate, since being unemployed naturally lowers your standard of living more than being employed.

The New Deal was not designed to raise GDP nor stabilize monetary policy. It was designed to do one thing: get people employed. When people work, the economy naturally starts moving again because people will start buying goods which, in-turn, spurs firms to produce more goods.

No employment means no production because there is no demand. Since the private sector was adamantly cutting back during the early years of the Great Depression, the New Deal was created to provide government-based employment which would:

1. Get people working again, to alleviate the stress from not being able to find a job (contrary to popular belief, people don't enjoy standing in soup kitchen lines and begging on the street)
2. Provide money (since these people are working for the government) to allow people to start saving and spending on consumers goods.
3. Raise the standard of living (since people without money naturally can't afford basic shit, and giving people money by employing them allows them to buy shit).

[Sibirsky]

There needs to be a poll.

But FDR is definitely one of the worst.

He locked up innocent Japanese people for no reason, and prolonged the Great Depression. Hard to top that.

The internment camps are a black mark on his record, to be sure, and another blemish on America's troubled history of race relations.

To your second point, lol no.

Salon writers are economically illiterate.

Also biased fucking pricks. They forgot to mention, that FDR also raised taxes in 1937.

I can see how raising taxes can cause a recession. Spending, did not go down much either.

[Sibirsky]

I am not assuming.

Smoot-Hawley started it, but the New Deal exacerbated it.

How exactly did the New Deal make the Great Depression worse. I'm not measuring by GDP but by employment rate, since being unemployed naturally lowers your standard of living more than being employed.

The New Deal was not designed to raise GDP nor stabilize monetary policy. It was designed to do one thing: get people employed. When people work, the economy naturally starts moving again because people will start buying goods which, in-turn, spurs firms to produce more goods.

No employment means no production because there is no demand. Since the private sector was adamantly cutting back during the early years of the Great Depression, the New Deal was created to provide government-based employment which would:

1. Get people working again, to alleviate the stress from not being able to find a job (contrary to popular belief, people don't enjoy standing in soup kitchen lines and begging on the street)
2. Provide money (since these people are working for the government) to allow people to start saving and spending on consumers goods.
3. Raise the standard of living (since people without money naturally can't afford basic shit, and giving people money by employing them allows them to buy shit).

Employment for the sake of employment makes little sense. Employment that is productive, makes sense.

If you just give people money, as welfare or unemployment insurance, they will buy stuff and create demand too.

Now don't get me wrong, employment is obviously preferable to welfare. But a lot of employment created by the government, is counter productive. It is too expensive, and produces negative results.

It literally would be economically beneficial, to give those people money to do nothing.

Think about that.

[Sibirsky]

Dangerous Lessons of 1937

By The Macabees

Attack the argument, not the source or author.

Goooo!

[Agymnum]

Employment for the sake of employment makes little sense. Employment that is productive, makes sense.

If you just give people money, as welfare or unemployment insurance, they will buy stuff and create demand too.

Now don't get me wrong, employment is obviously preferable to welfare. But a lot of employment created by the government, is counter productive. It is too expensive, and produces negative results.

It literally would be economically beneficial, to give those people money to do nothing.

Think about that.

Think about what, exactly?

You've just literally told me that giving people welfare is preferable to giving them government employment. I don't understand, I thought that government employment was preferable to welfare because it ensured that you couldn't get money for free - that you had to work to get it.

And it's not like they were producing negative results and throwing the employment into a hole. This employment produced palpable results - for example, the Griffith Observatory is a product of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Fort Peck Dam is a product of the Public Works Administration (PWA).

Also note that the Public Works Administration (PWA) did not actually hire workers but provided government contracts to private construction companies who could prove that they were actively hiring the unemployed. The Works Progress Administration was the division that actually hired the unemployed and it generally focused on smaller projects.

[Frisivisia]

lol @ the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression.

Rightism is funny.

[Agymnum]

Dangerous Lessons of 1937

By The Macabees

Attack the argument, not the source or author.

Goooo!

As soon as I saw that it was a site that supported Austrian Economic Theory, any chance of me taking the argument seriously was shot down. They would naturally portray the New Deal in a negative light because of course the New Deal goes against Austrian Economic Theory.

You attacked the source and author simultaneously in this post:

Salon writers are economically illiterate.

Also biased fucking pricks. They forgot to mention, that FDR also raised taxes in 1937.

I can see how raising taxes can cause a recession. Spending, did not go down much either.

So please tell me why I shouldn't do the same to yours.

[Frisivisia]

Dangerous Lessons of 1937

By The Macabees

Attack the argument, not the source or author.

Goooo!

*Sees blatant attack on Salon.com*

*Sees pleading not to attack Mises*

LOLOL

[Frisivisia]

Like I said in another thread, every Presidents has their ups and downs. The Abraham Lincoln suspended several civil rights, including habeas corpus, used the lack of the Southern states to push through every program he ever wanted with impunity, and allowed his wife to fritter away large amounts of taxpayer money on a lavish lifestyle and decorating the White House.

Suspending civil rights on a massive scale is just a 'down' like any other disagreeable action?
...
Something seems wrong about that.

(this isn't directed at you necessarily) I've noticed an odd trend in folks to forgive civil rights violations for little real reason but a feeling of ideological commonality or respect when it comes to US presidents. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus is oftentimes waved off, FDRs imprisonment of an entire group of people based off ancestry is glossed over as a 'downer' of an otherwise great Presidency.

This is especially odd when similar activities by other presidents (Jackson's Indian Removal program, Reagan's interventions in foreign countries in support of human rights abusing governments, et. al.) are usually brought to the forefront rather readily (hell, Jackson even suffers from this glossing over to a good extent).

FDR, still the greatest President in American History.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The internment camps are a black mark on his record, to be sure, and another blemish on America's troubled history of race relations.

To your second point, lol no.

Salon writers are economically illiterate.

Also biased fucking pricks. They forgot to mention, that FDR also raised taxes in 1937.

I can see how raising taxes can cause a recession. Spending, did not go down much either.

You dismissed the "LOL", but didn't cover the "NO".

[Marthonzales]

You know them real good, I see.

If you were an American, you'd know that Woodraw Wilson was the fastest carpenter in the west!

LOL

[Agymnum]

FDR, still the greatest President in American History.

I should point out that FDR gets bonus points for being a better actor than Reagan (managing to convince everyone that his polio was somehow getting better > pretending you had no fucking clue that your administration was funding the Contras).

[Frisivisia]

FDR, still the greatest President in American History.

I should point out that FDR gets bonus points for being a better actor than Reagan (managing to convince everyone that his polio was somehow getting better > pretending you had no fucking clue that your administration was funding the Contras).

Let's be fair, that may have been real due to Reagan being an 80-year-old dumbass.

[Agymnum]

Salon writers are economically illiterate.

Also biased fucking pricks. They forgot to mention, that FDR also raised taxes in 1937.

I can see how raising taxes can cause a recession. Spending, did not go down much either.

The reason he raised taxes was because conservatives demanded he balance the budget. He gave them what they wanted, so I don't see why 1937 was somehow part of FDR's master plan.

He made a stupid mistake and threw the Conservatives a bone, and thus made the Depression worsen briefly because he decided to play nice for once.

[Agymnum]

I should point out that FDR gets bonus points for being a better actor than Reagan (managing to convince everyone that his polio was somehow getting better > pretending you had no fucking clue that your administration was funding the Contras).

Let's be fair, that may have been real due to Reagan being an 80-year-old dumbass.

I like to imagine Reagan wasn't THAT incompetent...

Because if he was, that reflects on all the voters who swept two terms for him.

[Trotskylvania]

I am not assuming.

No, you're just wrong.

Smoot-Hawley started it, but the New Deal exacerbated it.

The Great Depression was already great even before Smoot-Hawley was passed, let alone went into effect. It neither started the Great Depression, nor did it have a very large effect compared to the other contributing factors of a collapsed credit system, flagging consumer demand, and deflationary monetary policy.

Indeed, it could not have even close to accounted for the 50 percent decline in GDP, as import and export each accounted for only five percent of the US economy prior to the start of the Depression. Vain and foolhardy policy it may have been, compared to the vast scale of the Depression it is a relatively minor factor.

As for the New Deal exacerbating the Depression, only a few heterodox economists and historians will take this hypothesis seriously. Because the data doesn't support it. The New Deal was at times schizophrenic, even contradictory in its aims, it had some strong core economic principles guiding it. The New Deal eased credit, ended deflationary monetary policy particularly with regards to the gold standard, and stimulated recovery through major deficit spending, an absolutely vital part of restoring collapsed aggregate demand. It established new regulatory principles that prevented the financial moral hazard that had helped lead to the collapse in the first place, and the expansion of labor unions supported by the federal government ended a long period of deliberate wage repression by capital, and the new labor relations regulations encouraged less destructive labor disputes, reducing work stoppages and increasing efficiency.

As a whole, it was a considerable success.

WWII did not end the Great Depression. It reduced unemployment by sending men to Europe to fight, and the women to the factories, to build tanks and planes.

Production grew, GDP grew. The standard of living fell. That is not a recovery.

We used resources to build weapons and destroy them. Not to manufacture consumer goods that improve people's lives. We rationed food.

Now, don't get me wrong. The government, and most importantly the people, supported the war. Wars back then were financed by war bonds sold to the public. And the public bought. There was no mandate. The public was pissed about Pearl Harbor and upset about the Nazis in Europe.

Wages increased throughout WW2. It enabled a restoration of depleted savings The rationalization of the economy during the Second World War didn't just mean the production of war materiel instead of consumer goods. It also meant massive investment in infrastructure and new capital improvements to facilitate increased war production. It meant the development of new production techniques as part of the planned economy to increase efficiency. It meant the stimulating of research in new fields, and the development of new technologies. All of this brought a substantial peace dividend once the war was over, and the war machine was converted to producing consumer goods once again.

The war was just the New Deal on steroids, and brought a great peace dividend because the process of modern warfare is massively Keynesian, necessitating both deficit spending and a rationalization of production that accomplishes both a stimulus of aggregate demand as well as an increase in productivity.

My point is, to look at a growing GDP (which did not grow the entire time either) and claim a recovery is wrong. We must look at the standard of living. It did not start to improve, until FDR was out of office and the war was over.

What is he getting credit for?

And those are the major points. There are many more smaller ones.

Yes they very much did. Conditions were improving all throughout the New Deal era, with only the exception of the 38 recession, brought about by an ill-conceived attempt to balance the budget and play by your school's playbook. People went back to work, prices began to stabilize, production increased, and measure of poverty and food insecurity decreased.

Even during the War and the necessary rationing, access to fundamental necessities improved in the civilian economy.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Suspending civil rights on a massive scale is just a 'down' like any other disagreeable action?
...
Something seems wrong about that.

(this isn't directed at you necessarily) I've noticed an odd trend in folks to forgive civil rights violations for little real reason but a feeling of ideological commonality or respect when it comes to US presidents. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus is oftentimes waved off, FDRs imprisonment of an entire group of people based off ancestry is glossed over as a 'downer' of an otherwise great Presidency.

This is especially odd when similar activities by other presidents (Jackson's Indian Removal program, Reagan's interventions in foreign countries in support of human rights abusing governments, et. al.) are usually brought to the forefront rather readily (hell, Jackson even suffers from this glossing over to a good extent).

FDR, still the greatest President in American History.

Bah, man had a shit domestic policy. The only thing that saved him during the war was Marshall. Man had no idea how to run a military campaign.

Have I mentioned what a joke his son was?

Not to mention the bastard's giving up all of Eastern Europe to the damned Ruskis. I could've been in BERLIN before the Red Army but noooooo!

[Agymnum]

Bah, man had a shit domestic policy. The only thing that saved him during the war was Marshall. Man had no idea how to run a military campaign.

Have I mentioned what a joke his son was?

Not to mention the bastard's giving up all of Eastern Europe to the damned Ruskis. I could've been in BERLIN before the Red Army but noooooo!

So, take Berlin, then Stalin flips his shit and decides to go to war.

I mean, Stalin had the momentum. The only reason he stopped was because he was happy with Eastern Europe being the buffer zone. Without that he might've said fuck it and actually ignited a hot war.

[The Black Forrest]

It's interesting how polarized views on Reagan are. I don't know any other president that sparks as much disagreement on NSG.

Well? It's been long enough for myth to start taking over the Regan Presidency.

I hear people talking about life being great back then.

[Agymnum]

*snip*

Did I ever tell you that you're my hero?

Well, you and Joe Biden, of course.