Could FDR have been the greatest of the Presidential Con Men?

[ironsides]

I do not think FDR was as great as people say. Seems that FDR's policies actually prolonged and exacerbated the economic disaster, swelled the federal goverment and prevented the country from turning around quickly. WW-II is what ended the so called "Great Depression", The "New Deal" hampered recovery. FDR just happened to be President as things fell into place.

 

[#juan]

I was very young when FDR was president but I think I probably would have liked him better than Truman. My parents were born in the U.S. and they worshipped FDR so I no doubt inherited some opinions from them.

 

[darkbeaver]

FDR was banking scum, all the flowery adulatory crap that's been spewed about the planet concerning Saint FDR is empty Holly-Wood rubish. He and his advisors made absolutly sure that Pearl Harbour went off as witnessed. This is a matter of congressional record. He did his bit for the bankers picnic known as World War Two.

 

[#juan]

FDR was banking scum, all the flowery adulatory crap that's been spewed about the planet concerning Saint FDR is empty Holly-Wood rubish. He and his advisors made absolutly sure that Pearl Harbour went off as witnessed. This is a matter of congressional record. He did his bit for the bankers picnic known as World War Two.

Oh yeah....No doubt the bankers created Adolf Hitler and Mussolini and all the other jerks responsible for that conflict. If FDR was responsible for Pearl Harbor, why in the hell did he wait for two years after the war started? I'm sure the rest of the allies would have been glad to see the U.S. in the war a bit earlier.

 

[Machjo]

I do not think FDR was as great as people say. Seems that FDR's policies actually prolonged and exacerbated the economic disaster, swelled the federal goverment and prevented the country from turning around quickly. WW-II is what ended the so called "Great Depression", The "New Deal" hampered recovery. FDR just happened to be President as things fell into place.

I would say that the New Deal and WWII helped to create jobs. The problem though is to ensure that the jobs created are an investment that will help to fight inflation after the recession, otherwise the recession will be replaced with inflation.

If I were the all-powerful King of the US at the time of the depresion, here's what I'd likely have done:

1. Not take action until we hit deflation.

2. As soon as deflation begins, start lowering interest rates to counter it, and keep doing so until we reach 0% Federal reserve rate. Since ther was no minimum wage at the time if I remember correctly, salaries could have adjusted as needed.

3. Once those two conditions were met, then, and only then, print just enough money to counter the deflation, and spend it on the following, prioritizing according to circumstances:

a. paying off the federal debt if there was one at the time.
b. give school vouchers to the unemployed so that they could learn a trade or profession.
c. invest in a blobal ethical stock fund.

The act of printing money and putting it into the economy would have helped counter the deflation. The low interest rate woud have given the government some wiggle room in case it should print too much money, so as to raise interest rates as needed to fight inflation. And after the depression:

The lower federal debt (assuming there was one previously) would have made it easier for the government to reduce its fiscal output to below its revenue as a way to take the money back out of the economy again. The newly trained workforce would return to the workforce more productive than before, thus increasing the economic value of tis output, which would also have hedged against the risk of inflation and high interest rates. And any investments acquired by the feds during the depression could then have been sold after the depression as a means of taking that money back out of the economy again.

This woudl have been a perfect scenario, allowing the government to put money into the economy during the depression to counter deflation while at the same time placing itself in a position to counter inflation after the recession, which would have shown forward planning.

Now, tobe fair of course, that would be an ideal scenario. Unfortunately, WWII cama long, and certainly sometimes there are more important issues to deal with than the economy.WWIi created jobs which was good to get the economyout of recession. But since money spent on war is not really an economic investment, inflation or high interest rates following the recession was inevitable.

As to what we could have learnt for this recession, I would say that while it's understandable that the government needs to put money into the economy in times of deflation, it needs to do so in such a way as to place itself in an ideal position to fight inflation after the recession, as inflation is often what follows a recession. In this recession, there was no forward planning. Sure the stimulous packages created some jobs, but how will we then counter the upcoming inflation? We'll have a higher debt, making it harder for government to then keep revenues so as to keep them out of circulation. Money put into the auto sector provided no skills upgrading for workers and just propped up industries that had already proven untenable on their own, so in times of inflation, these workers will produce nothing more than before, but with more money into the economy, so inflation and high interest rates become a real threat now, with governments ill -prepared to deal with it when it comes.

 

[Machjo]

FDR was banking scum, all the flowery adulatory crap that's been spewed about the planet concerning Saint FDR is empty Holly-Wood rubish. He and his advisors made absolutly sure that Pearl Harbour went off as witnessed. This is a matter of congressional record. He did his bit for the bankers picnic known as World War Two.

Yes, I agree that it was criminal for him to allow Pearl Harbor to go ahead just to stir up the American people to war. I'm undecided as to the wisdom of the US having entered that war, but can say that he should have at least tried to convince the people through rational arguments and not allow Pearl Harbor to occur. That was pure manipulation of the US population.

 

[darkbeaver]

Juan you have but to read the minutes yourself, they are freely available. It took as long as it did to force the position of the Japanese fleet, which was strategically strapped by geography and necessity to eventually attempt to take out the American Pacific fleet, and for no other reason. There was no overt American involvment in the war untill that necessary attack took place.

 

[Machjo]

Oh yeah....No doubt the bankers created Adolf Hitler and Mussolini and all the other jerks responsible for that conflict. If FDR was responsible for Pearl Harbor, why in the hell did he wait for two years after the war started? I'm sure the rest of the allies would have been glad to see the U.S. in the war a bit earlier.

Actually, Hitler was supported by many industrialists, at least in the beginning.

Now as for involvement in Pearl Harbor, I found this:

Attack on Pearl Harbor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There has been ongoing controversy due to allegations made by conspiracy theorists, and former armed forces personnel that some members of the Roosevelt administration had advance knowledge of the attack, and that this was purposefully ignored in order to gain public and Congressional support for America entering the war on the side of the British Empire and her allies. See Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate for more information.

So my bad, no proof of it. I take that back. However it has been written in many books, and let's face it, with army personnel on the theory, it does make it more believeable.

 

[darkbeaver]

Yes, I agree that it was criminal for him to allow Pearl Harbor to go ahead just to stir up the American people to war. I'm undecided as to the wisdom of the US having entered that war, but can say that he should have at least tried to convince the people through rational arguments and not allow Pearl Harbor to occur. That was pure manipulation of the US population.

At the consumer level wisdom does not come into play much at all, even less today then in those days. The consumer class is maintained to work and to die in the service of the elite. It's as simple as that. And it is that simplicity that has always acted to prevent the masses from assimilating the real construct of the "big lie". Rational argument about an irrational act like global war never works every war like it preceeds with the duped masses in nearly the exact same way. see Hermann Gorings little speech about how easy it is to invent the necessary national threat and enemy. Pure manipulation is the ultimate motivator, the prime mover of all dishonest human endeavours.

 

[darkbeaver]

Only junk was left tied up to be fed to the Japanese Navy. The military personell were expendable. Rosenfeld cut a very good deal for the project.

 

[Machjo]

DB, there is such a thing as a just war, though of course we must ensure that it is indeed a just war before we engage in it.

Now as for the whole consumer class, I could certaionly agree with giving workers voting rights on company boards to protect them from exploitation, but beyond that, capitalism, if taken in moderation, is not a bad thing. Some socialist ideas are good, and they need not necessarily be mutually incompatible. It is possible, such as in a social democratic system, to have a capitalist system with a socialist streak, both sides working in hormony, each doing what it does best. It doesnt have to be all or nothing.

 

[ironsides]

I was very young when FDR was president but I think I probably would have liked him better than Truman. My parents were born in the U.S. and they worshipped FDR so I no doubt inherited some opinions from them.

People did like FDR at the time better than Truman, they probably would have liked anybody better than Truman after he fired General Macarthur. My parents like him also. It is just that we only find out what he really did years after he died. History even proved the Truman was pretty good. People forgot that FDR tripled taxes during the depression. from the very beginning of his administration, he began attacking investors and employers. He seemed willing to try practically anything as long as it involved more goverment control over the economy. He didn't really seem to know anything about economics. Those jobs like the TVA Tennessee Valley Authority were just make work jobs, they by themselves would have never ended the world depression. It took the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor that was probably the biggest uniting factor in this country and is what ended the depression. I wonder how long FDR would have sat on the sidelines before joining the allies it they never attacked us.

 

[ironsides]

I would say that the New Deal and WWII helped to create jobs. The problem though is to ensure that the jobs created are an investment that will help to fight inflation after the recession, otherwise the recession will be replaced with inflation.

If I were the all-powerful King of the US at the time of the depresion, here's what I'd likely have done:

1. Not take action until we hit deflation.

2. As soon as deflation begins, start lowering interest rates to counter it, and keep doing so until we reach 0% Federal reserve rate. Since ther was no minimum wage at the time if I remember correctly, salaries could have adjusted as needed.

3. Once those two conditions were met, then, and only then, print just enough money to counter the deflation, and spend it on the following, prioritizing according to circumstances:

a. paying off the federal debt if there was one at the time.
b. give school vouchers to the unemployed so that they could learn a trade or profession.
c. invest in a blobal ethical stock fund.

The act of printing money and putting it into the economy would have helped counter the deflation. The low interest rate woud have given the government some wiggle room in case it should print too much money, so as to raise interest rates as needed to fight inflation. And after the depression:

The lower federal debt (assuming there was one previously) would have made it easier for the government to reduce its fiscal output to below its revenue as a way to take the money back out of the economy again. The newly trained workforce would return to the workforce more productive than before, thus increasing the economic value of tis output, which would also have hedged against the risk of inflation and high interest rates. And any investments acquired by the feds during the depression could then have been sold after the depression as a means of taking that money back out of the economy again.

This woudl have been a perfect scenario, allowing the government to put money into the economy during the depression to counter deflation while at the same time placing itself in a position to counter inflation after the recession, which would have shown forward planning.

Now, tobe fair of course, that would be an ideal scenario. Unfortunately, WWII cama long, and certainly sometimes there are more important issues to deal with than the economy.WWIi created jobs which was good to get the economyout of recession. But since money spent on war is not really an economic investment, inflation or high interest rates following the recession was inevitable.

As to what we could have learnt for this recession, I would say that while it's understandable that the government needs to put money into the economy in times of deflation, it needs to do so in such a way as to place itself in an ideal position to fight inflation after the recession, as inflation is often what follows a recession. In this recession, there was no forward planning. Sure the stimulous packages created some jobs, but how will we then counter the upcoming inflation? We'll have a higher debt, making it harder for government to then keep revenues so as to keep them out of circulation. Money put into the auto sector provided no skills upgrading for workers and just propped up industries that had already proven untenable on their own, so in times of inflation, these workers will produce nothing more than before, but with more money into the economy, so inflation and high interest rates become a real threat now, with governments ill -prepared to deal with it when it comes.

Might have worked better than what FDR proposed.

 

[Machjo]

Might have worked better than what FDR proposed.

To be fair to FDR though, he was having a first run at it. That excuse doesn't exist this time around.

 

[Machjo]

And another point in all fairness to Truman. If the government plans on increasing spending, then increasing taxes is necessary as a hedge against inflation later. Sure the government might choose to spend more than its revenue during the depression, but after the depresssion, it would need a way to rake that money back in to counter inflation. Looking at it that way, we can't blame FDR for having raised taxes per se. And after WWII, any responsible government would have raised taxes to support the military. On that front, I'd say he did the right thing.

 

[Machjo]

And that last point also applies now. The US just fought a war in Iraq and is still in Afghanistan, and has the most powerful military in the world. The US has been borrowing its way to a strong military since Reagan, with Clinton as the only temporary fiscal reprive. It's a given that as long as that continues, taxes must go u sooner or later to avoid potential hyper-inflation later.

 

[#juan]

People did like FDR at the time better than Truman, they probably would have liked anybody better than Truman after he fired General Macarthur. My parents like him also. It is just that we only find out what he really did years after he died. History even proved the Truman was pretty good. People forgot that FDR tripled taxes during the depression. from the very beginning of his administration, he began attacking investors and employers. He seemed willing to try practically anything as long as it involved more goverment control over the economy. He didn't really seem to know anything about economics. Those jobs like the TVA Tennessee Valley Authority were just make work jobs, they by themselves would have never ended the world depression. It took the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor that was probably the biggest uniting factor in this country and is what ended the depression. I wonder how long FDR would have sat on the sidelines before joining the allies if they never attacked us.

I had two older brothers who were in that war and our parents were getting edgy because they expected the U.S. to be right there after GB declared war with Germany and they celebrated the American entry into the war. This was a bit of a sore spot because the U.S. was two years late in the first world war as well, at least in some opinions.

You're right that we don't know everything about our politicians till after they are out of office. One of our better known prime ministers; Pierre Trudeau had a child out of wedlock and most people didn't know about it until after he died.

 

[darkbeaver]

DB, there is such a thing as a just war, though of course we must ensure that it is indeed a just war before we engage in it.

Now as for the whole consumer class, I could certaionly agree with giving workers voting rights on company boards to protect them from exploitation, but beyond that, capitalism, if taken in moderation, is not a bad thing. Some socialist ideas are good, and they need not necessarily be mutually incompatible. It is possible, such as in a social democratic system, to have a capitalist system with a socialist streak, both sides working in hormony, each doing what it does best. It doesnt have to be all or nothing.

A "just war"! I am not aware of any. If we paused to determine the justice of war we would not have any and how then would the global economy be driven to such efficient and profitable hieghts as enjoyed at this time. War has long ago become the economic engine of most state and transnational enterprise, it is theft and murder by another name plain and simple.
You think the crumbs from the tables of the elite rich will be entertained for all time then. This is plainly no way to conduct the preservation and elevation of a species, you can beg a place at the table for the moderated capitalist if you like but to do so will put you in their camp where you will endure the same radical benevolent adjustments. Capitalism cannot be regulated or controlled anymore than any other organized crime, it's been studied to the smallest detail for two-hundred years, it always runs rampant murdering rapeing and pillageing only to wallow in greater and greater corruption generation to generation, as the tools improve so does the instances and duration of injustice suffered by the inhabitants of this world. Social justice and capitalism are without any doubt whatever verifiably mutually incompatable and have always been so. Social justice does not would not and will not support usary. It will be all or nothing right down to the last pinstripped banker, finally and for all time or this species of ours will cease to exist. There you possibly have the basis for a just war.;-)

 

[ironsides]

I had two older brothers who were in that war and our parents were getting edgy because they expected the U.S. to be right there after GB declared war with Germany and they celebrated the American entry into the war. This was a bit of a sore spot because the U.S. was two years late in the first world war as well, at least in some opinions.

You're right that we don't know everything about our politicians till after they are out of office. One of our better known prime ministers; Pierre Trudeau had a child out of wedlock and most people didn't know about it until after he died.

Wish I had a good answer for why we waited two years before entering WW-II.

I did fine this answer, guess it was logical at the time.
"FDR did want the US involved in the conflict raging in Europe. He feared, rightly so, that the Germans might manage to subdue large portions of Europe, which they did. And that the goal of Hitler's Third Reich, a united states of Europe with Germany as it's head, was within grasp of Hitler. FDR also knew though that there were very strong anti-war feelings in the US. During WWI, the British had made the Germans out to be monsters because they desperately wanted the US' involvement. And at that time, all trans-atlantic communication cables went thru Britain, so the British were able to cut off any pro-German coverage. There is a story of a reporter who was with the Germans during the initial invasion of Belgium and into France. He was shocked when he returned to the US to read about the baby killing Germans. He stated he had never seen this happen while he was there. So many in the US thought that the British were just trying the same trick all over again. And there was also, though many do not like to admit, a strong communist movement in the states. This movement was taking it's orders from Moscow and due to the non-aggression pact, they supported Germany (up until the Germans invaded the Soviet Union). FDR wanted the US in the war, but also realized that he could not declare war without Congressional approval and this he did not have. It took the bombing of Pearl Harbor to finally give FDR the reason to enter the conflict."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_true_that_Franklin_Roosevelt_wanted_to_be_involved_in_the_war_and_if_so_why_would_he_want_to

 

[Machjo]

Wish I had a good answer for why we waited two years before entering WW-II.

I did fine this answer, guess it was logical at the time.
"FDR did want the US involved in the conflict raging in Europe. He feared, rightly so, that the Germans might manage to subdue large portions of Europe, which they did. And that the goal of Hitler's Third Reich, a united states of Europe with Germany as it's head, was within grasp of Hitler. FDR also knew though that there were very strong anti-war feelings in the US. During WWI, the British had made the Germans out to be monsters because they desperately wanted the US' involvement. And at that time, all trans-atlantic communication cables went thru Britain, so the British were able to cut off any pro-German coverage. There is a story of a reporter who was with the Germans during the initial invasion of Belgium and into France. He was shocked when he returned to the US to read about the baby killing Germans. He stated he had never seen this happen while he was there. So many in the US thought that the British were just trying the same trick all over again. And there was also, though many do not like to admit, a strong communist movement in the states. This movement was taking it's orders from Moscow and due to the non-aggression pact, they supported Germany (up until the Germans invaded the Soviet Union). FDR wanted the US in the war, but also realized that he could not declare war without Congressional approval and this he did not have. It took the bombing of Pearl Harbor to finally give FDR the reason to enter the conflict."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_true_that_Franklin_Roosevelt_wanted_to_be_involved_in_the_war_and_if_so_why_would_he_want_to

The boy who cried wolf Britain was!

As for communism, I think that's natural in times of economic downturn. In desperation for solutions, people turn to the extreme right or extreme left to solve the problem. Both the US and Canada suffered from this too, with fascist and communist movements growing in both countries, as was the case across Europe.