1
   

FDR's Folly: Roosevelt & New Deal Prolonged the Depression

 
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2004 01:01 pm
Interesting attempt by Republican Right history revisionists to blame FDR for making the Great Depression worse and longer than necessary.
---BBB


FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression
by Jim Powell

The Great Depression and the New Deal. For generations, the collective American consciousness has believed that the former ruined the country and the latter saved it. Endless praise has been heaped upon President Franklin Delano Roosevelt for masterfully reining in the Depression's destructive effects and propping up the country on his New Deal platform. In fact, FDR has achieved mythical status in American history and is considered to be, along with Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, one of the greatest presidents of all time. But would the Great Depression have been so catastrophic had the New Deal never been implemented"

In FDR's Folly, historian Jim Powell argues that it was in fact the New Deal itself, with its shortsighted programs, that deepened the Great Depression, swelled the federal government, and prevented the country from turning around quickly. You'll discover in alarming detail how FDR's federal programs hurt America more than helped it, with effects we still feel today, including:

How Social Security actually increased unemployment
How higher taxes undermined good businesses
How new labor laws threw people out of work
And much more

This groundbreaking book pulls back the shroud of awe and the cloak of time enveloping FDR to prove convincingly how flawed his economic policies actually were, despite his good intentions and the astounding intellect of his circle of advisers. In today's turbulent domestic and global environment, eerily similar to that of the 1930s, it's more important than ever before to uncover and understand the truth of our history, lest we be doomed to repeat it.

Editorial Reviews - Inside Flap Copy:

"Admirers of FDR credit his New Deal with restoring the American economy after the disastrous contraction of 1929-33. Truth to tell - as Powell demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt - the New Deal hampered recovery from the contraction, prolonged and added to unemployment, and set the stage for ever more intrusive and costly government. Powell's analysis is thoroughly documented, relying on an impressive variety of popular and academic literature both contemporary and historical."
Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate, Hoover Institution

"There is a critical and often forgotten difference between disaster and tragedy. Disasters happen to us all, no matter what we do. Tragedies are brought upon ourselves by hubris. The Depression of the 1930s would have been a brief disaster if it hadn't been for the national tragedy of the New Deal. Jim Powell has proven this."
P.J. O'Rourke, author of Parliament of Whores and Eat the Rich

"The material laid out in this book desperately needs to be available to a much wider audience than the ranks of professional economists and economic historians, if policy confusion similar to the New Deal is to be avoided in the future."
James M. Buchanan, Nobel Laureate, George Mason University

"I found Jim Powell's book fascinating. I think he has written an important story, one that definitely needs telling."
Thomas Fleming, author of The New Dealers' War

"Jim Powell is one tough-minded historian, willing to let the chips fall where they may. That's a rare quality these days, hence more valuable than ever. He lets the history do the talking."
David Landes, Professor of History Emeritus, Harvard University

"Jim Powell draws together voluminous economic research on the effects of all of Roosevelt's major policies. Along the way, Powell gives fascinating thumbnail sketches of the major players. The result is a devastating indictment, compellingly told. Those who think that government intervention helped get the U.S. economy out of the depression should read this book."
David R. Henderson, editor of The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics and author of The Joy of Freedom

About the Author:

JIM POWELL, editor of Laissez Faire Books, has been a senior fellow at the Cato Institute since 1988. He is the author of the bestselling book The Triumph of Liberty, which the Wall Street Journal called "a literary achievement," and he has written more than 400 articles for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, Money magazine, Reason, and numerous other national publications. A world-renowned historian, Mr. Powell studied under Daniel Boorstin and William McNeill at the University of Chicago, and he has lectured across the United States as well as in England, Germany, Japan, Brazil, and Argentina. He lives in Connecticut.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,567 • Replies: 22
No top replies

 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2004 01:42 pm
One of the first things you learn about an academic author in graduate school is that if they have to give their entire resume on the fly leaf, your dealing with a light weight.

It has been my not so humble opinion, in agreement with many many others, that the goal of the Bush administration, as well as the neoconservative movement in general, has been to reverse the social and economic legislation as well as the social assumptions, that are the legacy the New Deal. Roosevelt intentionally set about to redistribute wealth in the US through the use of the tax code. I have a sister who married into a family that feels (in my opinion wrongly) that their economic well being was badly damage by the tax policies of the New Deal. That the family was legally harassed to pay taxes they felt they did not owe. This, they feel, denied them the wealth an concomitant social position that was rightfully their's. She has collected some very interesting documents concerning this. This feeling of denied entitlement and anger rises in some instances to the level of revenge. Much of the Republican policy of tax and social policy retrenchment of the last ten years is seen as payback.

Although some may see this as alarmist, I think we live in very dangerous times. The four terms of Roosevelt are seen by some as an illegal usurpation of power. This is reflected in the current ideology of the right wing of the Republican party. Having gained the levers of power to redress the perceived wrongs committed during this usurpation, I do not think they are going to give them up, at least easily. This in my opinion was the root of the almost hysterical assault on Clinton and his administration, which has continued, even after his retirement.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2004 01:48 pm
Acquiunk
Acquiunk, I agree with you.

It was interesting to watch Michael Barone team up with the author to help tout his "reinterpretation" theory on C-SPAN today. The only thing Barone disagreed with was the author's claim that Republican policies could have brought the unemployment rate down to 5% by 1933 if FDR had not screwed up things. Barone commented that he doubted that an unemployment rate of at least 25 percent could have been brought down to 5 percent by 1933. The author just smirked in non-response.

BBB
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2004 05:36 pm
Roosevelt is my favorite president. Naturally I don't like reading this stuff.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2004 12:15 am
Re: FDR's Folly: Roosevelt & New Deal Prolonged the Depr
Quote:
JIM POWELL, editor of Laissez Faire Books, has been a senior fellow at the Cato Institute since 1988.

TRANSLATION: Rather than holding a real job, he has had a nice, cushy sinecure with a libertarian think-tank for 15 years.

Quote:
He is the author of the bestselling book The Triumph of Liberty, which the Wall Street Journal called "a literary achievement"...

TRANSLATION: The Wall Street Journal is to book reviews what The New Yorker is to high finance.

Quote:
...and he has written more than 400 articles for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, Money magazine, Reason, and numerous other national publications.

TRANSLATION: Proving once again that anyone can get an op-ed piece published somewhere.

Quote:
A world-renowned historian...

TRANSLATION: He doesn't hold an academic position.

Quote:
Mr. Powell studied under Daniel Boorstin and William McNeill at the University of Chicago...

TRANSLATION: He took a couple of classes that were taught by them, but he really didn't learn much.

Quote:
...and he has lectured across the United States as well as in England, Germany, Japan, Brazil, and Argentina. He lives in Connecticut.

TRANSLATION: Why not list your hobbies or your turn-offs as well? Most authors, with more substantial resumes, don't need to list their lecture tours or their home addresses to pad their CVs.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2004 10:30 am
joefromchicago
joefromchicago, you nailed his butt to the wall very nicely.

BBB Laughing
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2004 11:12 am
As I understand it, the mainstream opinion among economists is that the New Deal was a grab bag of initiatives, some of which turned out to help, others of which turned out to hurt.

Among the ones that helped were the make work programs (like the WPA, the CCC, and the TVA) and the new institutions that smoothened the operation of financial markets (Security and exchange commission, federal deposit insurance.)

Among the initiatives that hurt were the price controls (minimum wage, price floors for food, etc) and the regulations of the labor market (the National Recovery administration and possibly the Wagner Act).

In other words, with the benefit of hindsight both supporters and opponents of the New Deal have a lot of cases to make their points. There is a decent case to be made against major parts of the New Deal, and the book doesn't have to be a crank job. For what it's worth, the friendly blurbs by Milton Friedman and James Buchanan suggest that the book's intellectual quality is at least not too embarrassing.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2004 11:38 am
Without a blueprint, Roosevelt had to experiment. All the more credit to him that as much of it succeeded as it did.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2004 11:48 am
edgarblythe wrote:
Without a blueprint, Roosevelt had to experiment. All the more credit to him that as much of it succeeded as it did.

Sure. And while I haven't read "FDR's folly", I know that Milton Friedman and other conservative economists do acknowledge that. The conservative's line of attack is not so much that FDR did the wrong thing given the information he had at the time, it's that we should dismantle or privatize New Deal programs given the information we now have. That mostly means Social Security privatization.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2004 11:54 am
BBB, just curious but this makes me wonder just how much FDR stood on the shoulders of Eugene V Debbs?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2004 12:03 pm
I would love to see many elements of the New Deal restored. I don't look for it to happen no matter which party is in control.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2004 12:18 pm
Dys
Dys, found this in response to your question---BBB

In the twentieth century, we have been graced with a series of habitual presidential losers, largely from outside of the traditional two-party system. Socialist Norman Thomas ran (and lost) six times, in each campaign between 1928 and 1948, inclusive. He never captured the big prize, but he did get to watch Franklin D. Roosevelt implement many of the policies for which he had advocated during his early campaigns, and his insightful thoughts, writings and speeches against the Cold War arms race, poverty, racism, the war in Vietnam and the military-industrial complex in general were often prescient, and frequently pilfered by major party opponents.

Thomas followed in the oft-defeated footsteps of Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist Party's candidate from 1900 to 1912 (inclusive), and again in 1920--when he ran his campaign from his prison cell in Moundsville, West Virginia, to which he had been convicted for speaking out against American involvement in the Great War in Europe, in violation of the war-time espionage law. While Debs never slept in the White House, he was the lightning rod of the labor movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and is still regarded as one of the most eloquent and passionate orators of his era.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2004 02:17 pm
I think most people agree that it was WWII that really ended the great depression.

Like edgar, I still hold FDR as one of our greatest presidents in times of crisis.(and Eleanor was one great lady)

My father was quite a historian, and he continually pointed out the flaws of Hoover and why he was so short-sighted. Hey, I didn't understand it then, but after having taught American History, I see that he was absolutely right. The programs, right or wrong, gave the American people hope.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2004 02:55 pm
Don't much care for Roosevelt, but I kind of doubt Mr. Powell has ever seen real unemployment figures of 25%.

Good translations, Joe.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2004 10:33 am
Acquiunk wrote:
Roosevelt intentionally set about to redistribute wealth in the US through the use of the tax code.


The problem was Acquiunk,
Redistribution of wealth is NOT the Federal Governments JOB.
While Roosevelt handled WW2 very well and compares favorably with the 'great men' that walked the world at that time, many of the projects he implemented were only able to be pushed through a Congress that was frightened by the condition that it found itself in.

Many of the programs that he started have now become bloated, overgrown leeches that are sucking the very lifeblood from our country.

Roosevelt and Johnson, in my opinion, did more to destroy this country through their socialist/communist programs than Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev and Mao ever even contemplated.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2004 10:52 am
Fedral wrote:
Roosevelt and Johnson, in my opinion, did more to destroy this country through their socialist/communist programs than Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev and Mao ever even contemplated.

I am not an unconditional fan of the New Deal programs either, but I do suggest that you read up on Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism. After that, you may want to reconsider the substance and taste of that last paragraph.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2004 11:01 am
Fedral wrote:
Redistribution of wealth is NOT the Federal Governments JOB.


It certainly has been, three examples; the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, Jackson's refusal to recharter the Nation Bank, the Homestead Act of 1862. In all three case the federal government used its powers to insure a more equitable distribution of wealth at the expense of a monied elite.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2004 11:02 am
Fedral
Fedral, good grief! What history do they teach about FDR and the Great Depression, Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism in Orlando, Florida?

Exactly how do Roosevelt and Johnson match up with Lenin, Stalin and Moa?

And I remind you that US involvement in Viet Nam started with Eisenhower, then Kennedy, then Johnson and finally Nixon. Which of them match up with Lenin, Stalin and Moa?

BBB
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2004 11:15 am
I'm with bbb on that,Fedral. I'm assuming that is your personal interpretation. Now Huey Long did want to redistribute the wealth. Hmmmm. There's another history mystery--Long's assassination.

SEC-good, but now abused
SS- good, but was meant to be a supplement.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2004 12:06 pm
Bush wants to redistribute the wealth too. Out of the working prople's hands and into his and his friends'.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » FDR's Folly: Roosevelt & New Deal Prolonged the Depression
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 08:31:22