Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Folly of FDR
#61
What a solid Crock of HorseShit!! In other words, I don't have the time to waste. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#62
It's not wasted time. It is just a little part of the bigger effort to defeat the collectivists. It has to come from all directions at all levels.
Reply
#63
Here comes that pesky Dr.Murphy again, who continues to pour more cold water on the Keynesians, who are now lying about the one who started the entire Crash of '29, and subsequent Great Depression. According to Paul Krugman Robin Wells, in their review of This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, they state the following:

Quote:In successive updates, however, they have shown current events increasingly diverging from the historical record, with the world experiencing a recovery that may be disappointing, but is far better than the continuing downward spiral between 1929 and 1933. The obvious difference is policy: rather than emulating the grim austerity of policymakers three generations ago, who slashed spending in an effort to balance budgets and raised interest rates in an effort to preserve the gold standard, today's leaders have been willing to run deficits and pump funds into the economy. The result, arguably, has been a much smaller disaster.

Say What? And this is where People like Krugman, who pass themselves off as learned economists, influence others, who rely upon them to be accurate and factual. What they do is make broad statements which are loaded with only half truths. For instance they are lauding the fact that Hoover raised taxes. It's part of the Leftist Keynesian agenda to do such. But they tie it in with the lie: that Hoover actually helped "Cut" spending, which is horrible to Keynesians. To them, this is all about spending one's way out of trouble.

But Dr. Murphy comes to the rescue, and shows that Hoover in fact increased spending, not decreased it. And this is how Keynesians play loose and fast with facts, in order to discredit Classical Economists, who believe just the opposite.

Dr Murphy concludes:

Quote:Today's Keynesians love to point to history to "prove" the efficacy of their remedies. In particular, they adore Hoover's budget cuts of 1932, and the Fed's rate hikes of October 1931, as proof positive that ignorant conservatism caused the Great Depression. But prior to these turnarounds in policy, the federal government and central bank operated in a Keynesian fashion, though perhaps too timidly for Krugman's liking. Krugman's basic story doesn't make sense. If the Keynesians were right, the economy should have been in a tepid recovery by mid-1931, and yet it was in fact still freefalling.

In total contrast, in the depression of 1920—1921, the federal government and Federal Reserve really did implement the harsh measures that Krugman et al. erroneously attribute to Hoover and company. And yet, as its name suggests, this earlier depression was over quite quickly, and paved the way for the Roaring Twenties.

On their face, the Keynesian prescriptions make no sense. When an economy is on the ropes, the last thing in the world it needs is for politicians to squander more resources and for the central bank to print up more green pieces of paper. Yet even if we set aside economic logic and just "look at the facts," we see that the Keynesian narrative doesn't add up.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#64
And speaking of 'Folly', Dan Mitchell makes a sweeping statement that some avid anti-Obama folks may find a bit hard to swallow: No Matter How Hard He Tries, Obama Will Never Be as Bad as FDR. The Grizz may well be breathing a sigh of relief,.....until he realizes who Obama is being compared to. S5

Of course, we are assuming Obama has no second term, right? Right?.................

And I do take exception, based upon one point*

Quote:I’ve explained on many occasions that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was bad news for the economy. And the same can be said of Herbert Hoover’s policies, since he also expanded the burden of federal spending, raised tax rates, and increased government intervention.

So when I was specifically asked to take part in a symposium on Barack Obama, Franklin Roosevelt, and the New Deal, I quickly said yes.

I was asked to respond to this question: “Was that an FDR-Sized Stimulus?” Here’s some of what I wrote.

Quote:President Obama probably wants to be another FDR, and his policies share an ideological kinship with those that were imposed during the New Deal. But there’s really no comparing the 1930s and today. And that’s a good thing. As explained by Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, President Roosevelt’s policies are increasingly understood to have had a negative impact on the American economy. …what should have been a routine or even serious recession became the Great Depression.

In other words, my assessment is that Obama is a Mini-Me version of FDR, which is a lot better (or, to be more accurate, less worse) than the real thing.

Quote:To be sure, Obama wants higher tax rates, and he has expanded government control over the economy. And the main achievement of his first year was the so-called stimulus, which was based on the same Keynesian theory(Superstition) that a nation can become richer by switching money from one pocket to another. …Obama did get his health plan through Congress, but its costs, fortunately, pale in comparison to Social Security and its $30 trillion long-run deficit. And the Dodd-Frank bailout bill is peanuts compared to all the intervention of Roosevelt’s New Deal. In other words, Obama’s policies have nudged the nation in the wrong direction and slowed economic growth. FDR, by contrast, dramatically expanded the burden of government and managed to keep us in a depression for a decade. So thank goodness Barack Obama is no Franklin Roosevelt.

The last sentence of the excerpt is a perfect summary of my remarks. I think Obama’s policies have been bad for the economy, but he has done far less damage than FDR because his policy mistakes have been much smaller.

“Hey, don’t sell me short. Just wait to see how much havoc I can wreak if reelected!”

Moreover, Obama has never proposed anything as crazy as FDR’s “Economic Bill of Rights.” As I pointed out in my article, this “would have created a massive entitlement state—putting America on a path to becoming a failed European welfare state a couple of decades before European governments made the same mistake.”

[Image: Obama-FDR.jpg]

On the other hand, subsequent presidents did create that massive entitlement state and Obama added another straw to the camel’s back with Obamacare.

And he is rigidly opposed to the entitlement reforms that would save America from becoming another Greece.

So maybe I didn’t give him enough credit for being as bad as FDR.

P.S. Here’s some 1930s economic humor, and it still applies today. And I also found this cartoon online.

[Image: new-deal-humor.jpg]

And here’s a good Mini-Me image involving Jimmy Carter. I wasn’t able to find one of Obama and FDR.

If anybody has the skill to create such an image, please send it my way.

P.P.S. The symposium also features an excellent contribution from Professor Lee Ohanian of UCLA.

And from the left, it’s interesting to see that Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research basically agrees with me.

But only in the sense that he also says Obama is a junior-sized version of FDR. Dean actually thinks Obama should have embraced his inner-FDR and wasted even more money on an even bigger so-called stimulus.






* Point: - The reason why FDR was so destructive, and Obama will not be able to equal him, is the fact that the country is already lost most of its economic liberties as set forth by our Founding Fathers. When FDR took over, the size and scope of Government was so much smaller than it is today. Hence, he had a lot of room to tear down the system and attempt to remake it into something the Progressives(now cloaking themselves under the Liberal cloak) could take heart in claiming.

Today, Obama has far less 'wiggle room'. The further he tries to complete the job, the easier it is to see the negative results. And also the easier for the electorate to push back against all this Progressive/Collectivist perversion.

So, for Obama to even think of coming close to FDR's destructive path, he would have to remain in office, and gain dictatorial powers. This would entail overturning the up coming election, or declaring martial law. Then he would have to rule by decree, and not have the country take up arms and physically throw him out of office. And the chances of all this are a stretch, but still possible with enough Leftists willing to go along with tyranny: the very thing they claim to adhore.

I wonder if Grizz would support Obama doing this?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#65
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#66
(10-13-2012, 04:02 PM)John L Wrote: ...The reason why FDR was so destructive, and Obama will not be able to equal him, is the fact that the country is already lost most of its economic liberties as set forth by our Founding Fathers. When FDR took over, the size and scope of Government was so much smaller than it is today. Hence, he had a lot of room to tear down the system and attempt to remake it into something the Progressives(now cloaking themselves under the Liberal cloak) could take heart in claiming.

Today, Obama has far less 'wiggle room'. The further he tries to complete the job, the easier it is to see the negative results. And also the easier for the electorate to push back against all this Progressive/Collectivist perversion.

So, for Obama to even think of coming close to FDR's destructive path, he would have to remain in office, and gain dictatorial powers. This would entail overturning the up coming election, or declaring martial law. Then he would have to rule by decree, and not have the country take up arms and physically throw him out of office. And the chances of all this are a stretch, but still possible with enough Leftists willing to go along with tyranny: the very thing they claim to abhor....
Less is more has always been an easy argument, but I'm not sure it is true in this case. Obama stands on the shoulders of earlier Progressives who paved the way for him. There is far more wiggle room" now than ever. The template has been redrawn to allow Keynesian vocabulary to explain things, and the new media allows stupidity to take root. there is no need of only dictatorial powers, when so much is already allowed.
Reply
#67
More evidence of the folly of FDR.



___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)