The Krugman Recipe for Depression

[shagdrum]

The Krugman Recipe for Depression
Massive government spending is no solution to unemployment

By AMITY SHLAES

Paul Krugman of the New York Times has been on the attack lately in regard to the New Deal. His new book "The Return of Depression Economics," emphasizes the importance of New Deal-style spending. He has said the trouble with the New Deal was that it didn't spend enough.

He's also arguing that some writers and economists have been misrepresenting the 1930s to make the effect of FDR's overall policy look worse than it was. I'm interested in part because Mr. Krugman has mentioned me by name. He recently said that I am the one "whose misleading statistics have been widely disseminated on the right."

Mr. Krugman is a new Nobel Laureate, teaches at Princeton University and writes a column for a nationally prominent newspaper. So what he says is believed to be objective by many people, even when it isn't. But the larger reason we should care about the 1930s employment record is that the cure Roosevelt offered, the New Deal, is on everyone else's mind as well. In a recent "60 Minutes" interview, President-elect Barack Obama said, "keep in mind that 1932, 1933, the unemployment rate was 25%, inching up to 30%."

The New Deal is Mr. Obama's context for the giant infrastructure plan his new team is developing. If he proposes FDR-style recovery programs, then it is useful to establish whether those original programs actually brought recovery. The answer is, they didn't. New Deal spending provided jobs but did not get the country back to where it was before.

This reality shows most clearly in the data -- everyone's data. During the Depression the federal government did not survey unemployment routinely as it does today. But a young economist named Stanley Lebergott helped the Bureau of Labor Statistics in Washington compile systematic unemployment data for that key period. He counted up what he called "regular work" such as a job as a school teacher or a job in the private sector. He intentionally did not include temporary jobs in emergency programs -- because to count a short-term, make-work project as a real job was to mask the anxiety of one who really didn't have regular work with long-term prospects.

The result is what we today call the Lebergott/Bureau of Labor Statistics series. They show one man in four was unemployed when Roosevelt took office. They show joblessness overall always above the 14% line from 1931 to 1940. Six years into the New Deal and its programs to create jobs or help organized labor, two in 10 men were unemployed. Mr. Lebergott went on to become one of America's premier economic historians at Wesleyan University. His data are what I cite. So do others, including our president-elect in the "60 Minutes" interview.

Later, Lee Ohanian of UCLA studied New Deal unemployment by the number of hours worked. His picture was similar to Mr. Lebergott's. Even late in 1939, total hours worked by the adult population was down by a fifth from the 1929 level. To be sure, Michael Darby of UCLA has argued that make-work jobs should be counted. Even so, his chart shows that from 1931 to 1940, New Deal joblessness ranges as high as 16% (1934) but never gets below 9%. Nine percent or above is hardly a jobless target to which the Obama administration would aspire.

What kept the picture so dark so long? Deflation for one, but also the notion that government could engineer economic recovery by favoring the public sector at the expense of the private sector. New Dealers raised taxes again and again to fund spending. The New Dealers also insisted on higher wages when businesses could ill afford them. Roosevelt, for example, signed into law first his National Recovery Administration, whose codes forced businesses to pay an above-market minimum wage, and then the Wagner Act, which gave union workers more power.

As a result of such policy, pay for workers in the later 1930s was well above trend. Mr. Ohanian's research documents this. High wages hurt corporate profits and therefore hiring. The unemployed stayed unemployed. "If you had a job you were all right" -- the phrase we all heard as children about the Depression -- really does capture the period.

Why does all this matter today? Because lawmakers are considering new labor legislation containing "card check," which would strengthen organized labor and so its wage demands. Because employees continue to pressure firms to spend on health care, without considering they may be making the company unable to hire an unemployed friend. Piling on public-sector jobs or raising wages may take away jobs in the private sector, directly or indirectly.

What the new administration decides about marginal tax rates also matters. Mr. Obama said in a Thanksgiving talk that he wanted to "create or save 2.5 million new jobs." People who talk about saving new jobs are usually talking about the private-sector's capacity to generate jobs in the future -- not about the public sector alone. We know that the new administration is going to spend. But how? It can try to figure out a way to do that without hurting the private sector. Or it can just spend, Krugman-wise, and risk repeating the very depression we seek to avoid.

Ms. Shlaes is senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression" (HarperPerennial, 2008).

 

[foxpaws]

Just in case, Krugman is an actual economist (phd in economics - MIT)... and that little prize he won was the NOBEL PRIZE IN ECONOMICS... Shlaes is an economic reporter - with a bachelors in english from Yale (she did graduate magna cum laude however)

Krugman vs. Shlaes — Not A Fair Fight
There’s no reason you should be following this silly little fight between Paul Krugman and Amity Shlaes. It centers around a false distinction but has wandered into a grudge match between two very different personalities. Krugman is abrasive but brilliant. Shlaes is plodding and tendentious. The funny thing is that they agree but neither wants to admit it.

First, a quick re-cap of the tit-for-tat: Shlaes first came to prominence with her book on the Depression, The Forgotten Man, which rode the usual conservative hobby horses about government interference. Even before the financial crisis, the book had strong following among the troglodyte right.

Intoxicated with her increasingly influential voice, Shlaes tried in her muddled way, to have a voice in the Obama stimulus plan. Here in a Bloomberg opinion piece, she got one thing right: the stimulus should focus on meaningful infrastructure like Eisenhower’s National Highway system. This is the point that she and Krugman agree upon but both would be loathe to admit it.

Krugman pounced on Shlaes here in his Times blog where he points out the difference between Keynesian spending and the Great Society (a favorite conservative target.)

You don’t have to take Krugman’s word that Shlaes’s work is lopsided and poorly argue. Even a friendly citation of her work has The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle tap dancing away from Shlaes:

The problem is that Shlaes way, way, way overstates her case. There is an academic argument that the National Recovery Administration prolonged the Great Depression [ . . . ] But the Great Depression is complicated, and it’s hard to make the case that government intervention was the main problem with the economy. As economic history, the book is interesting if one sided. But as an argument, it leaves a lot to be desired.​

All of that sets up today’s Wall Street Journal Opinion piece where Shlaes is still stinging from Krugman’s rebuke. And she continues to flail around for a reason to oppose a stimulus plan that all sides agree must be focused on creating jobs and spurring private sector spending:

Because lawmakers are considering new labor legislation containing “card check,” which would strengthen organized labor and so its wage demands. Because employees continue to pressure firms to spend on health care, without considering they may be making the company unable to hire an unemployed friend. Piling on public-sector jobs or raising wages may take away jobs in the private sector, directly or indirectly. [emphasis added]​

Editors note: We previously took issue with Shlaes’ defense of Phil Gramm’s mental recession/nation of whiners comments. She did so by using a definition of recession — 2 consec Qs negative GDP — that was outdated centuries ago. Either she is economically clueless, in which case she should be dismissed as a no-nothing. Or, perhaps she knew better, but used it anyway, making her a hypocrite.

 

[Calabrio]

Yet, despite those credentials, he's routinely wrong. I would assert that Krugman is a fool and that his nobel prize is an indication of his politics, not his understanding of the world.


Not that's you've quoted a woman, who's profession is following the art market, to simply undermine Shlaes formal credentials, let's quickly take a look at her actual biography:
http://www.amityshlaes.com/bio.php

Now, putting aside the character and credibility assassination, let's examine her actual point.
FDR EXTENDED THE GREAT DEPRESSION with his reckless and foolish expansion of government that limited healthy competition from the market place.

As for the "academic argument" woman wants:
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/WP/WP597.pdf (quickly googled link to the working papers from 2001)
Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian- two ECONOMISTS released th paper in 2004 blaming FDR for extending the length of the Great Depresion by SEVEN YEARS.

 

[Calabrio]

Same Old New Deal?
by George Will


WASHINGTON -- Early in what became the Great Depression, John Maynard Keynes was asked if anything similar had ever happened. "Yes," he replied, "it was called the Dark Ages and it lasted 400 years." It did take 25 years, until November 1954, for the Dow to return to the peak it reached in September 1929. So caution is sensible concerning calls for a new New Deal.

The assumption is that the New Deal vanquished the Depression. Intelligent, informed people differ about why the Depression lasted so long. But people whose recipe for recovery today is another New Deal should remember that America's biggest industrial collapse occurred in 1937, eight years after the 1929 stock market crash and nearly five years into the New Deal. In 1939, after a decade of frantic federal spending -- President Herbert Hoover increased it more than 50 percent between 1929 and the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt -- unemployment was 17.2 percent.

"I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started," lamented Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury secretary. Unemployment declined when America began selling materials to nations engaged in a war America would soon join.

In "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression," Amity Shlaes of the Council on Foreign Relations and Bloomberg News argues that government policies, beyond the Federal Reserve's tight money, deepened and prolonged the Depression. The policies included encouraging strong unions and wages higher than lagging productivity justified, on the theory that workers' spending would be stimulative. Instead, corporate profits -- prerequisites for job-creating investments -- were excessively drained into labor expenses that left many workers priced out of the market.

In a 2004 paper, Harold L. Cole of UCLA and Lee E. Ohanian of UCLA and the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis argued that the Depression would have ended in 1936, rather than in 1943, were it not for policies that magnified the power of labor and encouraged the cartelization of industries. These policies expressed the New Deal premise that the Depression was caused by excessive competition that first reduced prices and wages, and then employment and consumer demand. In a forthcoming paper, Ohanian argues that "much of the depth of the Depression" is explained by Hoover's policy -- a precursor of the New Deal mentality -- of pressuring businesses to keep nominal wages fixed.

Furthermore, Hoover's 1932 increase in the top income tax rate, from 25 percent to 63 percent, was unhelpful. And FDR's hyperkinetic New Deal created uncertainties that paralyzed private-sector decision-making. Which sounds familiar.

Bear Stearns? Broker a merger. Lehman Brothers? Death sentence. The $700 billion is for cleaning up toxic assets? Maybe not. Writes Russell Roberts of George Mason University:

"By acting without rhyme or reason, politicians have destroyed the rules of the game. There is no reason to invest, no reason to take risk, no reason to be prudent, no reason to look for buyers if your firm is failing. Everything is up in the air and as a result, the only prudent policy is to wait and see what the government will do next. The frenetic efforts of FDR had the same impact: Net investment was negative through much of the 1930s."

Barack Obama says the next stimulus should deliver a "jolt." His adviser Austan Goolsbee says it must be big enough to "startle the thing into submission." Their theory is that the crisis is largely psychological, requiring shock treatment. But shocks from government have been plentiful.

Unfortunately, one thing government can do quickly and efficiently -- distribute checks -- could fail to stimulate because Americans might do with the money what they have been rightly criticized for not doing nearly enough: save it. Because individual consumption is 70 percent of economic activity, St. Augustine's prayer ("Give me chastity and continence, but not yet") is echoed today: Make Americans thrifty, but not now.

Obama's "rescue plan for the middle class" includes a tax credit for businesses "for each new employee they hire" in America over the next two years. The assumption is that businesses will create jobs that would not have been created without the subsidy. If so, the subsidy will suffuse the economy with inefficiencies -- labor costs not justified by value added. Here we go again? A new New Deal would vindicate pessimists who say that history is not one damn thing after another, it is the same damn thing over and over. George Will's e-mail address is georgewill(at)washpost.com. (c) 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

 

[foxpaws]

OK, Calabrio - let's just look at what perhaps someone who actually won the coveted 'Loeb' award twice (of which Ms Shlaes was merely nominated for, and never was awarded - but deserved 'best known' status in her bio) David Warsh said about her little bit of 'reception history' ...

I kept thinking of the attempt to capture a forgotten man of an earlier era with Wiswell while reading Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. Shlaes' book is not fiction, though it reads almost as smoothly as if it were a novel. But neither is it professional history. (The author is a veteran journalist and Bloomberg columnist.) Perhaps it could be thought of as "reception history," an account of various versions of the great event, the interpretations ventured both by those who lived through it and by those who sought to manage it and justify their actions to the public.

Probably it is more accurate, though, to describe it as an elaborate cautionary tale (464 pages), designed to support a particular interpretation of the present by selective reference to the past.

And a good rebuttal regarding Roosevelt's record...

Stop lying about Roosevelt’s record.

And did you ever wonder that maybe the American people thought that Roosevelt was at least doing an OK job - the man was elected 4 times...

And check out Bernanke's Essays on the Great Depression if you really want the definite work... And you can never go wrong reading Studs Terkel, he is one of my favorites.

Or just read a great review of ms shlaes' book by John Updike...

Now, for the record... I don't think a Roosevelt style 'new deal' will work in our current situation - unemployment isn't as high, and so far people haven't lost their savings in failed banks, and hopefully won't because of a little program started by Roosevelt - the FDIC...The WPA and CCC were products of a different time, and of a different type of economic crisis.

However (and after much ruminating, and yes, listening to the opposite side and finding good ideas there too... ), I do think that the government certainly could look at giving contracts to private industry to start to fix the infrastructure of this country - which is falling apart, and needs to be fixed. What better time to help out a failing construction industry than giving it a new task - rebuild the foundations of our cities. War is one of the reasons we did emerge from the depression, along with the government spending within the private sector. Giving huge WWII defense contracts to Detroit for instance finally put the automakers back in the black. I would like to see private industry take a lead in fixing all this. However, I think the scale is such that the government will need to do some things to help industry get back on its feet. There are lots of avenues that the government could help. Streamlining healthcare could be another good avenue - if the two biggest users of the healthcare system, medicaid and medicare forced some real changes, like universal paperwork and access to medical records, an industry would 'pop up' to fulfill that need... Private industry responding to a challenge - even though it is a government challenge, is still private industry, and profits.

But, back to Shlaes - to 'blanket-ly' state that Roosevelt prolonged the depression is something that most economists (not all, but most) have issues with. It is a complex economic time, and to think that a little political/economic pundit like Shlaes can just lay the blame at Roosevelt's door is misleading at best.

And, until Obama's economic plan is actually laid out - I think all the speculation (for that is what it is at this point) should be remembered for what it is - speculation. Between now and Jan 20 the economical landscape could change drastically - let's not put the cart before the horse here...

Oh, by the way - Shlaes' biography also proudly points to the fact she wrote for the Financial Times - it sort of misses to point out she was fired by the FT for a little piece she did on Katrina -

And, just in case anyone really does question it - usually being a Nobel laureate is pretty much considered to be an expert in their field. Krugman's bio is a bit more impressive than ms Shlaes... and I can actually quote one that isn't from Krugman's site - unlike your little bio which is from Shlaes site - and probably was written by her...

 

[Calabrio]

OK, Calabrio - let's just look at...

No, let's not. She's a woman who is knowledgeable and respected in her field, has written a book on the very subject being discussed here. I'm not going to spend any additional time discussing her resume.

And a good rebuttal regarding Roosevelt's record...

Stop lying about Roosevelt’s record.

No it's not.

And did you ever wonder that maybe the American people thought that Roosevelt was at least doing an OK job - the man was elected 4 times...

And let's not forget that he was damn near a tyrant, running for office FOUR times. A man of such ridiculous self importance that he defied the traditions of much greater men that preceded him and continued to run for re-election despite being on his death bed.

This feat was only made possible by a lap dog media, with it's historicly liberal bias, that misled the American people on issues concerning FDRs health and vitality.

You may try to argue that FDR was a great President, I'd argue that he was a complete and utter failure. He botched up the economy. He wielded executive power like a tyrant. And he botched up World War 2, leading to the division of Europe and a half century worth of cold war.

The only good thing I can think of was the fact he found a work around from Wilson's ridiculous, Utopian, neutrality stance nonsense.

It astounds me, though it doesn't surprise me knowing the intellectual dishonesty of the left, that liberals they continue to praise this man. He's the saint of modern day liberalism.

Now, for the record... I don't think a Roosevelt style 'new deal' will work in our current situation -

Good, it didn't work the first time either.
But at least we agree on that.

I do think that the government certainly could look at giving contracts to private industry to start to fix the infrastructure of this country - which is falling apart, and needs to be fixed. What better time to help out a failing construction industry than giving it a new task - rebuild the foundations of our cities.

Infrastructure is something we need, and to finance it as you've mentioned (through the private sector) would actually cause economic recovery.
Of course, I would also argue that immigration reform would need to be resolved first, because migrant, immigrant, and illegal labor are the main cause for stagnant wages in the lower and middle-middle classes.

By the way, Al Gore has a Nobel Peace Price. And you want us to take the institution seriously?
And be honest about Krugman.. He's better known for his rabid attacks on George W. Bush than he is for his so-called economic knowledge.
The Nobel committee is extremely political. Krugman didn't win that award because of his mastery of economics or insight. I used to read his column, he's remarkably bad.

 

[foxpaws]

No, let's not. She's a woman who is knowledgeable and respected in her field, has written a book on the very subject being discussed here. I'm not going to spend any additional time discussing her resume.

And miracles of miracles – Krugman has written a book - “The Coming Depression” on how the depression occurred and yes, how we aren’t headed for another one…
He has written 2 dozen books – not that it matters that much – Shlaes – 4… And because she wrote a book on the subject makes her correct?

Oh well…

Roosevelt may have been a tyrant – but a well loved tyrant… as I said, the people voted him into office, over and over again. They obviously believed in what he was doing - they had plenty of time to review it...

And does the fact Roosevelt had polio discount him as a president? I hope not, talk about prejudices.

I don’t sanctify Roosevelt – he was a man created by the times. And who was a dynamic man who then was able to effect the time he lived in. I am sure you point to Reagan as a ‘saint of modern day conservatism’. I may have never agreed with the man or his policies, but I am enough of a realist to state that he changed the times in which he lived – markedly. Do I discount that as dishonesty of the right? No. That is what you adhere to, it isn’t dishonesty – it is dogma the right embraces.

The shrinking of the middle class as well as the stagnant wages are a result of many factors – immigration being one of them. The cost of living is rising, along with healthcare. Industrial jobs going off-shore, along with technical support jobs, good, middle class jobs are being exported. And if employers were actually concerned with repercussions of hiring illegal workers, things might change as well. If there weren’t any jobs for illegal workers, they wouldn’t stay. They will continue to come into this country as long as there are jobs available, no jobs – no workers. You can’t completely shut off the boarders, it isn’t cost effective. But maybe if the rules were enforced that we already have, with severe penalties for employers, the problem would certainly be far less. Don't blame the man who wants to better himself, or improve his family's lot in life - in this case look at the employer who is anxious to add to the bottom line. Will some business fail if the availability of extraordinarily cheap labor diminishes - yes. But if there is a need - other businesses will flourish. Construction will happen - and in this case - cannot be taken offshore.

The Nobel Peace Prize (a political prize) is quite different than the science awards. The economic prize is given by the Royal Swedish Academy of Science – not a political prize at all. You might not like Krugman – and as a media columnist he is very liberal and why you probably think he is bad – since all liberals are bad . But he got the award because of his science of economics - not his politics of economics...

Or maybe you just don’t like Krugman’s relentless criticism of the Bush administration’s economic policies – well, it is beginning to look more and more like Krugman was right… that Bushonomics will end in grief for the American people.

 

[fossten]

And a good rebuttal regarding Roosevelt's record...

Stop lying about Roosevelt’s record.

I found some of the comments more convincing than the rebuttal.

 

[Calabrio]

And miracles of miracles – Krugman has written a book -

That's fine... I still think he's a sawed off, weasley little horses ass.
But that's just my opinion.

Roosevelt may have been a tyrant – but a well loved tyrant

So was Hitler...

And does the fact Roosevelt had polio discount him as a president? I hope not, talk about prejudices.

No but the fact that he died in office, had to be carried around, and lacked the energy or focus to present a strong presence when going nose to nose against Churchill and Stalin certainly works against him.

I don’t sanctify Roosevelt – he was a man created by the times.

No, in large part, he was responsible for the times. And his lingering stench and toxic influence remains to this day.

And who was a dynamic man who then was able to effect the time he lived in.

A skilled politicians doesn't mean you're a leader who made positive change. He certainly had an impact on history, the question is, was it for the best? Of the good that happened during his tenure, was it the product of his unique influence? And was the bad the result of him personally? I think the uniquely Roosevelt things were overall NEGATIVE. His economic policy. His domestic policy. His inability to represent the United States with strength at Yalta. Even his refusal to keep COMMUNISTS out of high ranking, intelligence sensitive positions of government.

I am sure you point to Reagan as a ‘saint of modern day conservatism’. I may have never agreed with the man or his policies, but I am enough of a realist to state that he changed the times in which he lived – markedly

I don't deny FDR changed the times.
I just recognize that we'd have been better had he not.

t is dogma the right embraces.

Dogma implies that there's a strong element of faith associated with the concept. To the contrary. Conservatives are used to being challenged on a daily basis. Reagan's presidency had failures as well as great successes. We can discuss Reagan and his Presidency separately.

In contrast, FDR does Represent leftist Dogma. It's entire faith based and it's taught by the converted to children. All my life I was taught that FDR saved the country. That he ended the depression and won the war! Hell, he even saved Annie and Daddy Warbucks. Don't dare challenge the legacy of the sickly, socialist, tyrant lest the left will attack with you the intensity of a jihadist muslim.

The Nobel Peace Prize (a political prize) is quite different than the science awards. The economic prize is given by the Royal Swedish Academy of Science – not a political prize at all.

And the media isn't biased. And the Universities aren't run by leftists. Anything else you'd like to deny?

But you may be right. Maybe it was done on the strength of his research.
Perhaps if he spent 30 years writing his op-ed pieces, he might be right more often.

Or maybe you just don’t like Krugman’s relentless criticism of the Bush administration’s economic policies – well, it is beginning to look more and more like Krugman was right… that Bushonomics will end in grief for the American people.

No, Krugman has continually been wrong and will continue to be wrong.

 

[foxpaws]

That's fine... I still think he's a sawed off, weasley little horses ass.
But that's just my opinion.

And Shlaes is an opportunist bitch who has no concept of reality... However, that is many peoples' opinion... as well as mine...

This is one of my favorite little quips that someone used to describe ms Shlaes... "she actually does not know what she thinks she knows, but she also does not know what she does not know.” A classic

Hitler wasn't well loved 12 years into his tenure - Roosevelt was... History has also weighed in on the two men (and to compare the two men is appalling Calabrio - I think that really shows your blind hatred in this case).

Election results -
1932 - Roosevelt - 23 million - 472 electoral
Hoover - 17 million - 59 electoral

1936 - Roosevelt - 28 million - 523 electoral
Landon - 17 million - 8 electoral

1940 - Roosevelt - 27 million - 448 electoral
Willkie - 22 million - 82 electoral

1944 - Roosevelt -26 million - 432 electoral
Dewey - 22 million - 99 electoral

As I said I don't sanctify Roosevelt - but to condemn the man because he died in office, had to be carried around is so wrong. Could he have been stronger at Yalta - yes, but he also had to appease Stalin. We were still in a war with Japan that might have required the Soviet Union's help, as the bomb had yet to be proven. He was quite sick when he ran for his last term, but, I believe he did love America, and wanted to finish the task he felt the American people had given him.

And I could say that we are still paying with our future for Reagan's misguided war against communism, fueled by his irrational fear. Or I could really lay into Nixon. But, I still don't think Reagan or even Nixon are to be vilified, as you blindly vilify FDR.

FDIC, SEC, an amazing war effort, and an economy that was improving (slower than FDR wanted, but it was improving...) were all things that Roosevelt gave America. Did he have bad things as well, yes, but so did many presidents. I think he was a 'good' president - not a 'great' president. Those are very few in number.

And during the Roosevelt years 'communist' wasn't the dirty word it became later - they were our Allies... remember? Things changed soon thereafter.

Would we have been better off with Hoover remaining in office for another term? Landon - come on... how about whimpy Willkie - can you imagine entering WWII with him at the helm. There may have been better men - but those who ran against him were not those men.

All my life I was taught that FDR saved the country.

Odd that you were taught that about Roosevelt - I wasn't - heck, maybe parochial school was good for something... And I know very few people my age or younger that would place Roosevelt on an untouchable pedestal, I think that is delegated for an older generation. Certainly I know plenty of people who place Reagan on a pedestal - and if you belong to that section of the right that grew up during, or were positively impacted by his presidency, I can see why you would.

And the media isn't biased. And the Universities aren't run by leftists. Anything else you'd like to deny?

Let's see - I have never denied the media is biased, education is by nature left (pay scale, along with left brain/right brain sweetheart). Got any other little rants you like to lay at my door?

No, Krugman has continually been wrong and will continue to be wrong.

I would say wait and see - I would imagine in about 2 years we will see how right Krugman is about Bushonomics...

 

[Calabrio]

And Shlaes is an opportunist bitch who has no concept of reality... However, that is many peoples' opinion... as well as mine...

Very well.

Hitler wasn't well loved 12 years into his tenure - Roosevelt was... History has also weighed in on the two men (and to compare the two men is appalling Calabrio - I think that really shows your blind hatred in this case).

No, it demonstrates the foolishness of the point you were making. Your argument in defense of Roosevelt was his popularity. Infamous men have been popular, that doesn't mean they were good. That doesn't mean they accomplished good things.

As I said I don't sanctify Roosevelt - but to condemn the man because he died in office, had to be carried around is so wrong. Could he have been stronger at Yalta - yes, but he also had to appease Stalin.

It's wrong to condemn a man who dies in office, but it's not wrong to condemn a man who continually ran for the highest office in the land, despite being deathly ill running for a third or fourth term. The guy had been dying since 1940. He ran for a 4th term in 1944. If I remember right, he died less than six months into his 4th term, leaving a completely unprepared Truman to take over the end game.

Also, he did not have to APPEASE Stalin through out the course of the war. Especially had FDR had the wisdom to recognize the Soviets, and communism, for what it is.

And I could say that we are still paying with our future for Reagan's misguided war against communism, fueled by his irrational fear. Or I could really lay into Nixon. But, I still don't think Reagan or even Nixon are to be vilified, as you blindly vilify FDR.

I'm not blindly doing anything.
FDR ruined the economy and made huge mistakes concerning the war. His presidency was tyrannical, his violations of civil liberties was epic, and he aggressively abused his executive powers to undermine the system of checks and balance. He vastly expanded the size and role of the federal government in a way that continues to hurt our country.

His effectiveness as a speaker and politician don't minimize any of these things.

I think he was a 'good' president - not a 'great' president. Those are very few in number.

Well, that puts you in the minority. Because the leftist "intellectuals" in this country continually MISLEAD the public and their students into thinking he was the greatest. The savior of the nation, the first modern President, and responsible for freeing the world.

I think he was a bad President, but a remarkably gifted politician.

And during the Roosevelt years 'communist' wasn't the dirty word it became later - they were our Allies... remember? Things changed soon thereafter.

Things didn't change, just some people were slower to recognize it than others.

Would we have been better off with Hoover remaining in office for another term?

I'm not sure who would have run in the 1940 or 1944 elections had FDR not run for the unprecedented 3rd and 4th terms. A much better Republican or Democrat may well have emerged.

Odd that you were taught that about Roosevelt - I wasn't - heck, maybe parochial school was good for something... And I know very few people my age or younger that would place Roosevelt on an untouchable pedestal, I think that is delegated for an older generation.

He's an icon now. And I am not kidding when I say "we" are taught that he was the greatest President of the 20th century. On par with a Lincoln or Jefferson. That he saved the country from the depression, beat the Nazis, and could ride his wheel chair across water.

Let's see - I have never denied the media is biased, education is by nature left (pay scale, along with left brain/right brain sweetheart). Got any other little rants you like to lay at my door?

University wasn't always "leftist". Thats a modern thing.
It's also reinforced by the culture that drives conservative voices off of campus. It has nothing to do with pay.

I would say wait and see - I would imagine in about 2 years we will see how right Krugman is about Bushonomics...

Krugman is clearly better when he has a few decades to write about something hypothetical. If he starts now, maybe he'll be given another nobel prize in 20 years. In the meantime, he can continue to publish crap in the New York times.

“Much of his popular work is disgraceful,” said Daniel Klein, a professor of economics at George Mason University, who this year wrote a comprehensive review of Mr. Krugman’s body of Times columns. “He totally omits all these major issues where the economics conclusion goes against the feel-good Democratic Party ethos, which I think he’s really tended to pander to especially since writing for The New York Times.”

Here's a link to the Comprehensive Review of Krugman's body of Times columns:
http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/KleinBarlettCharacterIssuesJanuary2008.pdf

 

[Calabrio]

Liberal religion and hero worship.... in the mainstream media.

The Obamessiah inheriting the mantle of FDR.
That's like the second coming to a leftist Democrat.

 

[foxpaws]

No, it demonstrates the foolishness of the point you were making. Your argument in defense of Roosevelt was his popularity. Infamous men have been popular, that doesn't mean they were good. That doesn't mean they accomplished good things.

But, I think his popularity was proof that the people were happy with the job he was doing – you don’t vote a man into office for a 4th time if you don’t think he is doing his job. People were genuinely happy with his record, and with the changes he effected. Sorry – but that was the case. The Republicans didn’t have anyone better – maybe the Dems did – but certainly not the Republicans. They were very bitter and really wanted him out of the white house and worked hard to remove him.

I think you condemn him for his weaknesses, but don’t give him any credit whatsoever for his strengths, Once again Calabrio, your one-sidedness is coloring all opinion you have of the man.

He died actually 4 months into his 4th term. And I believe he chose a good man in Truman (one of the few men who I end up putting in the ‘great’ presidents category). Yes, perhaps somewhat unprepared, but here was a man who really rose to the challenges that were presented to him.

And you don’t think he had to appease Stalin? You might want to go back and read some end game for WWII – even Churchill knew he had to walk softly around Stalin. Both Churchill and FDR knew they needed Stalin, and both knew he was a megalomaniac. The best way to deal with a megalomaniac – appease him at the time.

FDR did not ruin the economy – you can thank Hoover, Coolidge and Harding for that, with a bit of Wilson thrown in. FDR changed the economic landscape – and people like you – extreme free market capitalists – view that as a bad thing. Others do not. FDR moved the US economy in closer alignment with the rest of the world, under some pressure toward the end of 30s from Europe – especially Britain. Also removal of world currencies from the gold standard was an incredible change, and one that many economists point to for the lengthening of the depression (not entirely Roosevelt’s policies, once again Calabrio, you are viewing the US in isolationist mode – the world was already becoming a smaller place during the 30s.)

I really would be interested if ‘we’ have been taught that Roosevelt is the greatest president of the 20th century (as I said, I certainly wasn’t) – I have my doubts, but I could be wrong. Also, you could argue that he certainly didn’t have much competition. I certainly think Truman was, and I am certain many people put Reagan in that category. Perhaps when the Reagan presidency is 70 years in the past his reign will be viewed similarly.

University wasn't always "leftist". Thats a modern thing.
It's also reinforced by the culture that drives conservative voices off of campus. It has nothing to do with pay.

You are quite right Calabrio – In the past, when higher education was basically available to only the wealthy, campuses appeared more conservative then they are today – but even then, were considered ‘liberal’ when compared to mainstream culture. Youth, which traditionally embraces the left, along with a viewpoint of academia being a more ‘creative’ or a right brain profession (once again – skewing more left) and currently with lower pay (people who are more conservative tend to follow the money, and don’t become professors as often) are all items that move campuses to the left. It isn’t a new phenomena, it has however become more pronounced over the years. If you look at the end of the 1800s to the mid 1900s you could certainly say that conservatives were driving off liberal voices on higher education campuses. It is with the ability of many economic groups, races, and sexes to strive for higher education that has changed the climate of today’s campuses – maybe we should go back – right Calabrio – times were better than…

I am not sure - but are you claiming that the radical left are working together to brain wash our youth? Is there a new conspiracy theory at work here? You might want to go and review what you agreed with me on in the Obama Lawsuit thread - and see if any of those points work for you here...

Oh, I do like the new Time magazine cover - I bet it gets great newsstand sales...

 

[shagdrum]

But, I think his popularity was proof that the people were happy with the job he was doing – you don’t vote a man into office for a 4th time if you don’t think he is doing his job. People were genuinely happy with his record, and with the changes he effected.

But people voting him in office 4 times an presumably being happy with his performance does not in any way mean that his policies were actually a net positive for this country. In fact, most economists agree that his policies kept us in the depression much longer.

You have to look at the political climate of the time as well as the media. As Calabrio pointed out, it was highly biased towards FDR and was feeding the population disinformation and distortion. So, it is not suprising that the population at the time had a more positive view of him then his actual record warranted.

Ever heard the term, "hindsight is 20/20"?

I think you condemn him for his weaknesses, but don’t give him any credit whatsoever for his strengths, Once again Calabrio, your one-sidedness is coloring all opinion you have of the man.

Actually, I think it is your one-sidedness that is coloring your opinions...

FDR did not ruin the economy – you can thank Hoover, Coolidge and Harding for that, with a bit of Wilson thrown in.

I would like to see you prove that absurd statement.

FDR changed the economic landscape – and people like you – extreme free market capitalists – view that as a bad thing. Others do not.

And those "others" are wrong. The facts prove as much.

I really would be interested if ‘we’ have been taught that Roosevelt is the greatest president of the 20th century (as I said, I certainly wasn’t) – I have my doubts, but I could be wrong.

I don't know what schools you went to...

All of the classes I was and am in praise FDR (except the econ classes, for the most part).

people who are more conservative tend to follow the money, and don’t become professors as often

There is absolutely no logical basis for that statement.

Ever thought that maybe it is hard for a conservative to become a professor due to a rather blatant institutional bias in academia?

There is a helluva lot more info to back that idea up then the idea that "conservatives tend to follow the money".

 

[foxpaws]

You have to look at the political climate of the time as well as the media. As Calabrio pointed out, it was highly biased towards FDR and was feeding the population disinformation and distortion. So, it is not suprising that the population at the time had a more positive view of him then his actual record warranted.

You can’t feed lies to people standing in soup lines – people did continue to vote for him because things were getting better – People don’t have a lot of patience, especially when it comes to their own monetary situation. As people did get back to work, and saw that parts of the new deal were improving their situation and they saw progress. And hindsight is 20/20 is still in the eye of the beholder – ever hear of that one shag?

Actually, I think it is your one-sidedness that is coloring your opinions...

I think he had lots of problems – but, I don’t paint him with a ‘destroyer of the American way of life’ brush that Calabrio does.

FDR did not ruin the economy – you can thank Hoover, Coolidge and Harding for that, with a bit of Wilson thrown in.
I would like to see you prove that absurd statement.

Ah, I believe the economy was already in tatters long before FDR took office Shag – 1929 – he didn’t take office until 1933. It was already broken… and getting worse. You want GDP numbers – unemployment numbers? Even the Dow (a pretty bad way to judge the economy actually – especially in those times when only 10% of Americans held stock)? I am not quite sure why you would question that.

FDR changed the economic landscape – and people like you – extreme free market capitalists – view that as a bad thing. Others do not.
And those "others" are wrong. The facts prove as much.

No, other’s viewpoints aren’t wrong – it is only wrong when you are viewing this from an extreme capitalist’s viewpoint. Many people view Social Security as a very good thing – so they would view this program of FDRs as a good thing – probably if you asked most people in the United States if Social Security is a good thing they would say yes – in their viewpoint it is. In your viewpoint it isn’t (I am taking an educated guess here)– but that doesn’t make your viewpoint more valuable then theirs – it is just different. Good and bad are opinions in many cases. Certainly there is lots of opinion here, with what programs FDR instigated. Some see them as bad, others see them as good – across all sorts of criteria. And facts – they can all be varied – just dissect them a little differently and you get a whole other conclusion. Have a conservative capitalist look at FDRs record and it will fall apart. Have a liberal capitalist look and FDRs record and it will hold up well. Once again we will go into the realm of opinion.

Actually the fact that I am not speaking German right now… and my words aren’t 16 letters long is a plus for him in my opinion

people who are more conservative tend to follow the money, and don’t become professors as often
There is absolutely no logical basis for that statement.

Oh, I think there is –
From “Minding the Campus” a very conservative group promoting reintroducing a balance of right and left onto campuses
The solution to the problem of too few conservatives in academia, then, is simple: Pay them more money, and provide better jobs. This could mean offering fellowships to conservatives. Or, better yet, it would mean working to increase the proportion of tenure-track jobs and the salaries paid to professors. (However this is from John Wilson - a pretty liberal guy, but still on a very conservative site...)

Calabrio – you should really check out this site – you will love it, quote it often and embrace it fully! Why then should I give it to you, you might ask…

Could it be because although I might be a realist enough to state that campuses are liberal, and give darn good reasons why they are… it doesn’t mean that I agree that they should remain liberal. Although I am sure you would assume that of me…

 

[fossten]

FDR’s Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression, by Jim Powell, published 2003.

 

[foxpaws]

Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal 1932 – 1940 by William E. Leuchtenburg

A straightforward political history (unlike Powell's or Schlaes books which are revisionist history, i.e. history that they have 'bent' to fit their theories), Leuchtenburg also doesn’t adopt an extreme position on FDR or the New Deal. This book is neither a revisionist history arguing that the New Deal worsened and extended the Great Depression nor is a hagiography of Roosevelt presenting him as the one indispensable man. Taking the pro-FDR but objective position allows the author to present opposition and dissident views of the president and his programs in an calm academic fashion. Not everything attempted by Roosevelt was a success. It is important to know why because that was part of the political environment of the time. As much as it may appear that he had everything his own way, Roosevelt was a constrained by Congress, the Courts and public opinion as much as any other president. The author by taking an objective position is able to show this process without having to cast either the president or his opponents as the villain but rather as nothing more than everyday politicians with differences of opinions on how to achieve the desired goal, which in this case is national recovery.

 

[Calabrio]

You can’t feed lies to people standing in soup lines – people did continue to vote for him because things were getting better

Actually you can. And that's the best time to lie to them.
When they are in a position of complete dependence.

 

[fossten]

Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal 1932 – 1940 by William E. Leuchtenburg

A straightforward political history (unlike Powell's or Schlaes books which are revisionist history, i.e. history that they have 'bent' to fit their theories),

Neither of which you've read...

 

[foxpaws]

Ah yes, I did try to read Shlaes book - extremely light on facts and very heavy on supposition. There is nothing insightful about the Depression or the New Deal, and the little sketches of the 'everyday' people in the book seem to have no purpose other than maybe to distract from her argument about FDRs policies lengthening the depression - which she doesn't seem to prove. And she always uses the Dow to show the health of the economy - that really is a bunch of bunk. Once she got to turning Wilkie into the hero I just couldn't pretend that she knew anything about what she was talking about. For after the 1940 election Wendell actually became a supporter of FDR policies, and indeed FDR used Wilkie to represent the U.S. in travels to the Mideast, Britain, China and the USSR. Did Shlaes just forget that little bit of history as she paints Wilkie as her savior of the American Way? So, I made it about 3/4 of the way through.

I always have trouble with books that look at things as completely evil or all good. People really aren't that simple - and certainly FDR wasn't.

Powell's book I haven't read - but it is classified as the same type of revisionist history - beyond the fact that I couldn't stomach Shlaes book, it is difficult for me to justify the time to read another one.

I have read Leuchtenburg's book - it is a good history book - FDR and his policies are looked at with a less jaundice eye. FDR had many problems and had many programs that failed. But he also had successes. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal 1932 – 1940 looks at many of the facets of FDR's presidency and policies.

Without acknowledging the successes (from what I see she just doesn't mention them because they would contradict her 'FDR is evil' theory) Shlaes' book is relegated to propaganda.

So, which ones have you read Foss? If you liked Powell I will try to read it, your recommendations have been good so far...

 

[fossten]

You can’t feed lies to people standing in soup lines – people did continue to vote for him because things were getting better – People don’t have a lot of patience, especially when it comes to their own monetary situation.

Oh, really? Obama's right hand man would disagree with you.

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

Rahm Emmanuel

*owned*

 

[foxpaws]

So, Foss which of these books have you read?

 

[fossten]

So, Foss which of these books have you read?

I'll get back to you when I finish Powell's book.