Roosevelt's Lessons For Future Presidents

[JMS]

function vmsPopup(sUrl){ window.open(sUrl, "_vmspopup", "width=550,height=290,directories=no,status=no,menu bar=no,resizable=no");}
Roosevelt's Lessons For Future Presidents (Fullilove, FT)
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/36d8dfd6-8d42-11dc-a398-0000779fd2ac.html)
By Michael Fullilove

Seventy-five years ago today, Franklin D. Roosevelt of New York achieved a sweeping victory over Herbert Hoover in the 1932 presidential election.

From time to time we hear assertions about FDR's limitations – that his was only a second-class mind, or that his foreign policy was ambivalent and reactive, or that he was outwitted by Joseph Stalin at Yalta in 1945.

His detractors are right: Roosevelt achieved nothing in his life, apart from rescuing American democracy from the Depression; taking the US into the second world war and, through his defeat of isolationism, into the world; leading the Allies to victory over the dictators; winning four consecutive national elections; and doing all this with a crippled body.

Historians have likened the study of FDR's diplomacy to peering through a kaleidoscope: if you take the device apart, what seemed like a random display, created by the outside force of spinning the tube, suddenly has internal logic. It is the exact reverse of George W. Bush's diplomacy, in which a rigid mindset and ideology has been broken by reality and splintered into randomness.

Comparing the two presidents may seem unfair, however the Bush administration has brought the analogy down on its own head through its use of second world war imagery and terminology, such as the ill-starred reference to an "axis of evil".

Policymakers may wish to consider three lessons from FDR's foreign policy.

First, curiosity is a good thing. Isaiah Berlin wrote that Roosevelt "practised a highly personal form of government" that "must have maddened sober and responsible officials used to a slower tempo and more normal patterns of administration". FDR ignored established lines of authority; he listened to many advisers but relied on none; he worked through friends, personal contacts and battalions of special envoys. He was determined never to become, as the historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr told me, "a prisoner of a single information network".

Mr Bush prefers clear reporting lines and administrative tidiness. In his first term he was captured by certain ideas and individuals and closed his mind to the alternatives. By the time he had recalibrated his approach, the damage was done.

Second, it takes time and effort to build a durable domestic consensus in favour of involvement in a foreign war. FDR reached out to his opponents, co-opting vanquished rivals such as Wendell Willkie and installing Republicans such as Henry Stimson in his cabinet. He convinced Americans they needed to lead – and then he asked huge things of them. With the Lend-Lease Act, FDR put the whole country on a war footing even before war had been declared. By the time of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Americans understood where their security interests lay and they were ready for the fight.

Mr Bush has chosen a different path. He used 9/11 and the early successes of the Iraq war to squeeze the Democrats. His rash decisions have persuaded millions of Americans that their country should look inward and mind its own business. He was quick to invade Iraq, but very slow to ask the American public to share the burdens being borne by its armed forces.

The final lesson is that America is strongest when it works with others. FDR had the imagination to perceive America's appeal to the world. With his ready laugh and his cigarette holder held at a jaunty angle, he was the quintessential American optimist. In the depths of the Depression he raised Americans' spirits by assuring them that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". By signing up to the Atlantic Charter (with its provisions against territorial aggrandisement and for freedom of trade and the seas) and by pressing his British ally on decolonis­ation, he signalled that the rest of the world had a place in the American world view. For the postwar settlement, he designed institutions of global order that gave other nations a voice but ensured American predominance.

Mr Bush has presented a different face to the international community: Abu Ghraib, Camp X-Ray, extraordinary rendition and all the rest. These policies violated individual liberties; they also offended against American self-interest.

President Bush told the world: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." President Roosevelt's anniversary is a good reminder that there are better ways to bring the world along.

The writer directs the global issues programme at the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney

http://www.bulletinnews.com/images/icon_printer.gif Print (javascript:printclip())
_uacct = "UA-2410969-1";urchinTracker();

[rincewind]

Shouldn't the title read "Roosevelt's Lessons for A Future President" ?

[Riggo-toni]

FDR prolonged the recession for far longer than it should have gone on through his lame-brained domestic policies.
Recognizing the menace that was Nazi Germany, he rightly managed to drag the country into WWII, which is the only reason I don't hate him as a President.

[jbooma]

Why is everyone living in the past, time to worry about the now.

[stwasm]

Why is everyone living in the past, time to worry about the now.

Off topic, but someone needs to tell Joe Gibbs that!

[JMS]

FDR prolonged the recession for far longer than it should have gone on through his lame-brained domestic policies.


Actually it was the global Great Depression, not a recession. Also most modern Critics of FDR fault him for not doing enough deficit spending as he continued to stress fiscal responsibility while lifing the country out of the great depression.

As for his "lame-brained domestic policies". This is revisionist history. The global economic down turn or Great Depression started on Black tuesday October 29, 1929 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929), in the first year of Herbert Hoovers first and only term in office. After three years in Office herbert Hoover's policies had severly worsened the Crissis as GDP, corporate bankrupcies, bank failures, and employment all continued to fall.

Now In Roosevelts first year in office 1933, the difference he made was both dramatic and significant.

Take GDP for example..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/Gdp20-40.jpg


In 1933 the GDP graph makes a complete turn around.

Take unemployment

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/02/US-jobs2040.jpg


Another complete turn around...








Recognizing the menace that was Nazi Germany, he rightly managed to drag the country into WWII, which is the only reason I don't hate him as a President.

You should love him as a President. Not only was he the greatest American president ever. He likely saved the United States from an extreme fring leader like who took power in Germany, Italy, Spain. His handling of the economy during the depression likely saved the country from revolution. His handling of the war effort likely saved the world.

There is a reason the country elected Roosevelt to four consecutive terms in office. It's because he did very well by the country.

[EersSkins05]

Why is everyone living in the past, time to worry about the now.

History is the sum total of things that could have been avoided.
Konrad Adenauer


EDIT- GREAT post, JMS.

[jbooma]

Off topic, but someone needs to tell Joe Gibbs that!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Nah that is totally On topic :(

[jbooma]

History is the sum total of things that could have been avoided.
Konrad Adenauer


EDIT- GREAT post, JMS.


What you do is learn from your MISTAKES in the past when presented with something similar in the future. You do not live like you did in the past and I think that is the problem here. The ability to adapt in times of change is what is needed most instead of what is in our history books.

[rincewind]

What you do is learn from your MISTAKES in the past when presented with something similar in the future. You do not live like you did in the past and I think that is the problem here. The ability to adapt in times of change is what is needed most instead of what is in our history books.


You learn from your mistakes but not repeating them.

[Riggo-toni]

Unemployment was still at 17% in 7 years after FDR took office. The retail sector, which he left untouched, recovered quickly; but manufacturing which he insisted on regulating never recovered until WWII.
The trade war started by Smoot-Hawley tariff (especially in the aftermath of Hoover's excessive easy credit policies) and the massive tax increases by Hoover (raising the top rate from 30% to 66%) were more responsible for the Depression than the market crash, which actually initially brought stock prices down to where they were at the beginning of the year. For all the rhetoric, there was little difference in policy between Hoover and FDR, but FDR had the style, empathy and confidence that the bureaucratic Hoover sorely lacked.
Look at your employment graph - it took 8 years to get back to the level it was in 1930. The improvement would've been far quicker and more dramatic if FDR hadn't continued Hoover's bad policies of pushing taxes up higher and higher, which discouraged any new investments, a problem exarcerbated by restrictions on bank financing brought about by the Glass-Steagal act.

[Midnight Judges]

I'm always dumbfounded when Americans don't approve of FDR.

[Riggo-toni]

Not meaning to snipe at anyone, but a good read on the 20s and 30s is Modern Times by Paul Johnson. Maybe you'd understand or at least somewhat appreciate my POV.

[PeterMP]

Unemployment was still at 17% in 7 years after FDR took office. The retail sector, which he left untouched, recovered quickly;

I'm curious about your definition of quickly. Is it years later, but shortly after FDR took office?

Manufacturing and retail are completely different. It is unlikely that the same policies that would work to stimulate retail would also work to stimulat manufacturing. Comparably, retail requires little investment capitial (especially if you are unemployed and doing the selling yourself). Simply put money in peoples pockets, which FDR did through work programs, and retail will come back. Manufacturing requires that somebody have enough money and confidence to invest.

[Henry]

Not meaning to snipe at anyone, but a good read on the 20s and 30s is Modern Times by Paul Johnson. Maybe you'd understand or at least somewhat appreciate my POV.

I own that book. It's one of the most conservative history books in existence, and puts forth some extremely reactionary analyses of significant events in modern American history. It's a good read in the sense that it gives the reader a definitive view of history from one side of the political spectrum, but I'm always wary whenever anyone cites that book as a primary basis for his historical outlook. Just my opinion.

[Riggo-toni]

The problem was Roosevelt and his people regulated wages and such in the manufacturing sector. Simple economics - the price of labor was high, so employers took on fewer workers. FDR et al didn't think the retail sector was important, so they let the market work there. I would have to go back and look up the actual timeframe, but I think employment in the retail section was back up to where it had been pre-crash within a year or so.
If FDR had simply reversed all the damage Hoover had done and lowered taxes back down to where they'd been and reversed the tariff war, the economy would've bounced back sooner. Instead, he continued and even expanded Hoover's policies of high taxes and public projects. Only a handful, like the TVA, were truly beneficial, and many, most notably agricultural subsidies, continue to be a blight today.

[JMS]

Unemployment was still at 17% in 7 years after FDR took office.


http://www.ingrimayne.com/econ/EconomicCatastrophe/Figure5.4.gif


And again unemployment rates were climbing throughout Hoovers term in office and began to drop immediately when Roosevelt took office. So your complaint isn't that FDR improved unemployment. Your complaint is that his radical approach to the economy didn't improve it fast enough? that seems rather unreasonable when you see what Hoovers more conventional approach achieved. A month by month constant and steady climb in the ranks of the unemployed. Did FDR turn around the economy almost immediately. YES.
Did he fix the economy almost immediately. No. In 1937 he had unemployment down to 10% down from 25%.

Given the perspective of where the country was heading with Hoover's laize fair policies; FDR did great. As I said most modern economists fault FDR for not deficit spending enough.



The retail sector, which he left untouched, recovered quickly; but manufacturing which he insisted on regulating never recovered until WWII.


Roosevelt's policies pumped billions into the economy. Those policies had an almost immediate effect in retail. Likewise manufacturing completely turned around in Roosevelts first year in office, 1933. Again, did he fix it overnight. No; but he turned it around almost overnight ( first year ). And he did get industrial production back to pre depression levels in 1937 well before WWII.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c2/1930industry.jpg


You can't make the case that WWII saved the country from the Great depression of 1929 because that is not debatable. That depression follows a strict definition and ended in 1933 based upon GDP growth. You can make the case that WWII saved the country from the recession which followed this dramatic recovery in 1937.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/US-mfg20-40.jpg

Again Roosevelt's effects on the manufacturing economy was dramatic.






For all the rhetoric, there was little difference in policy between Hoover and FDR, but FDR had the style, empathy and confidence that the bureaucratic Hoover sorely lacked.


Any reasonable review of the economic indicators would refute this statement. Fact is Hoover contracted government spending. FDR increased it. Hoover tightened credit. FDR loosened it.

Just take banking policies.. FDR took office while a banking crisis was occurring. Roosevelt immediately called for a "bank holiday" closeing the banks until he could get federal backing to reopen the banks. When FDR reopenned the banks a week latter deposits outnumberd withdrawls.
Hoover had allowed two previous bank crisises to run there coarse which contributed to over 10,000 bank failures and $2 billion in lost deposits. FDR's actions took place in his first week in office.

FDR's first 100 days in office is considered to be the most efficient 100 days in our country's legislature history.


The Emergency Banking Bill
creation of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration,
the Civilian Conservation Corps,
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation,
the Tennessee Valley Authority.
the Federal Trade Commission was given broad new regulatory powers, provided mortgage relief to millions of farmers and homeowners.
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/First100days.htm


Look at your employment graph - it took 8 years to get back to the level it was in 1930. The improvement would've been far quicker and more dramatic if FDR hadn't continued Hoover's bad policies of pushing taxes up higher and higher, which discouraged any new investments, a problem exarcerbated by restrictions on bank financing brought about by the Glass-Steagal act.

Agreed, most economists believed FDR should have done more deficit spending. Something Roosevelt resisted until WWII. This did prolong the recovery. One can hardly fault Roosevelt for this. He had taken economic policy from stone knives and bear skins under hoover to the Jet age within months of taking office. Your complaint with him is he didn't fly the Concord but rather only progressed as far as a lockeed Constilation seem rather unfair and short sighted. Look where the economy was and where it was heading under Hoover. FDR did a great job, even as I admit; he wasn't perfect.

It's funny how a conservative is saying FDR didn't deficite spend enough and that's his big knock on FDR...?

[JMS]

The problem was Roosevelt and his people regulated wages and such in the manufacturing sector. Simple economics - the price of labor was high, so employers took on fewer workers. FDR et al didn't think the retail sector was important, so they let the market work there. I would have to go back and look up the actual timeframe, but I think employment in the retail section was back up to where it had been pre-crash within a year or so.
If FDR had simply reversed all the damage Hoover had done and lowered taxes back down to where they'd been and reversed the tariff war, the economy would've bounced back sooner. Instead, he continued and even expanded Hoover's policies of high taxes and public projects. Only a handful, like the TVA, were truly beneficial, and many, most notably agricultural subsidies, continue to be a blight today.

The problem was there wasn't any money in the economy. People were willing to work for pennies on the dollar of what they needed to support themselves. And they were lucky if they could get that. It wasn't enough for Roosevelt to increase manufacturing; he had to boost wages so the money made it into the economy. The money made it to the workers who would spend it to support themselves rather than end up in one guys pocket.

That's not where modern economists critisize Roosevelt. They critisize him for not spending more government money to quicken the pace of recovery.

[Riggo-toni]

First off, let's be clear - I am equally, if not more criticial of Hoover. Hoover's policies were the catalyst for the great depression.
As for deficit spending - FDR did plenty of that, and so did Hoover. The debt to GDP ration grew I believe around 150%. Yes, my point IS exactly that FDR could've achieved faster results, but I don't believe that's unreasonable. What if he'd simply cut taxes back to where they were before Hoover screwed things up, and opened up trade with all the nations who'd retaliated after Smoot-Hawley. You seem to believe there's some huge gap between Hoover's policies and FDR's, when there really wasn't. FDR was simply much more of the same, but there was an ENORMOUS gap in style, and the confidence which Roosevelt instilled in the public. However by raising income taxes to around 90%, he choked off any incentive for wealth creation. Comparing his stats to the misery Hoover caused is like telling me Ramsey is a franchise QB because he did sooo much better than Danny Waffle.
Furthermore, a President can't "boost" wages. That was a fundamental flaw in FDR's policies. Artificially raise the price of labor, and fewer people get hired. Simple supply and demand. Now - don't take me out of context and claim I'm advocating this, but Germany recovered years before the US because the facists pressured the unions into taking lower wages. No, I don't think we should've sent brownshirts into our labor unions; I'm simply pointing out a tangible example of a country that made a complete recovery by not trying to artificially boost the cost of labor. Again, if the US had simply lowered taxes and stayed out of price fixing, the recovery would've been much faster. This is what happened in previous crashes. NEITHER Hoover NOR FDR did this.

[Predicto]

There is a deliberate effort among conservative ideologues to diminish the accomplishments of FDR, because FDR is the "icon" of liberals and democrats. Left wing ideologues do the same thing to Ronald Reagan, utterly denying any value to his presidency. Both understand that controlling history is vitally important to shaping the long term views of the electorate.

Some of the criticisms are at least colorable, others are just revisionist nonsense. Suggesting that Roosevelt exacerbated the Great Depression falls into the nonsense category. It is easy to say, in 21st century retrospect, that some of his policies were ineffective and a few were even negative. But the circumstances were so extraordinary that it is utterly ludicrous to expect that anyone could have done better at that time. There had never been an event like the Great Depression, and there were no blueprints for how to deal with it.

The biggest thing that people forget is how people thought in the 1930s, what information they had. Communism was not the discredited ideology that it is now. The propaganda coming out of Russia painted a rosy picture of communism as a fair and sane alternative to capitalism, which clearly had "failed" (or else there wouldn't be a Great Depression, right?) Communism had an enormous appeal to the hungry and dispirited masses. There were huge marches on Washington DC, some of which were broken up by soldiers. It was a very delicate time for our nation. We could have gone communist, we could have gone fascist - seemed like everyone else was and was having success with it.

Roosevelt's policies put people to work, got the economy moving a bit, but mostly his leadership gave people hope that capitalism and democracy could work for them. He used the bully pulpit to SAVE capitalism in this country. I'm sorry, but conservative revisionist history is full of crap on this one.

[Predicto]

Now - don't take me out of context and claim I'm advocating this, but Germany recovered years before the US because the facists pressured the unions into taking lower wages. No, I don't think we should've sent brownshirts into our labor unions; I'm simply pointing out a tangible example of a country that made a complete recovery by not trying to artificially boost the cost of labor.

I do not think you are painting a complete picture of the German situation. It would take a week to explain all the flaws in this short statement. Let me start with the most obvious: the Nazis boosted the German economy in the mid 1930s through massive deficit spending, on a per capita basis much larger than in the US. They sold gazillions of bonds that they never repaid (because the Reich went to war and then lost before they were due.) They heavily regulated industry to achieve political goals of improving employment. They did massive public works projects, most notably the autobahns.

In other words, they did much more of the EXACT thing that you are criticizing Roosevelt for.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I got to say, JMS I think you might be my favorite poster. **** college. I'll just read your posts.

[luckydevil]

There is a deliberate effort among conservative ideologues to diminish the accomplishments of FDR, because FDR is the "icon" of liberals and democrats.


There is legitimate scholarship behind the notion that new deal prolonged the great depression. In fact, it is a fairly mainstream position among economists. Even Keynes criticized many aspects of the New Deal. I have had this debate with you before, you have in the past acknowlege some of the scholarship. So I am bit puzzled by the revionism claim.

[Predicto]

There is legitimate scholarship behind the notion that new deal prolonged the great depression. In fact, it is a fairly mainstream position among economists. Even Keynes criticized many aspects of the New Deal. I have had this debate with you before, you have in the past acknowlege some of the scholarship. So I am bit puzzled by the revionism claim.

Like I just said above: "It is easy to say, in 21st century retrospect, that some of his policies were ineffective and a few were even negative. But the circumstances were so extraordinary that it is utterly ludicrous to expect that anyone could have done better at that time. There had never been an event like the Great Depression, and there were no blueprints for how to deal with it."

There is no question that some of the New Deal was counterproductive from a pure economic point of view. However, it was not a situation in which a pure economic view was appropriate - social unrest was a real issue. Moreover, Roosevelt and his people did not have the benefit of the past 70 years of economic study. Economists alwasy find it easy to criticize, after the fact, and say what should have been done. They ignore that what was ACTUALLY done back then was done after listening to the advice of the economists back then.

Viewed fairly from an overall perspective, Roosevelt has to be given an "A minus" for his efforts. Not an "A plus" - it took WWII to put him over the top.

[JMS]

I do not think you are painting a complete picture of the German situation. It would take a week to explain all the flaws in this short statement. Let me start with the most obvious: the Nazis boosted the German economy in the mid 1930s through massive deficit spending, on a per capita basis much larger than in the US. They sold gazillions of bonds that they never repaid (because the Reich went to war and then lost before they were due.) They heavily regulated industry to achieve political goals of improving employment. They did massive public works projects, most notably the autobahns.



In other words, they did much more of the EXACT thing that you are criticizing Roosevelt for.



I totally agree with the revisionism aspect.



Not to mention that Germany began arming for the war they would shortly start in the early 1930's. The economic boom Hitler created can be directly attributed to the fact that he was planning global war which allowed him to begin arming before everybody else.


How can you speak of German economic policy of the 1930's and not mention Hitler put Germany on a war economy? That re-armament had everything to do with their employment and industrial growth. Wages being kept low, just allowed Hittler to get a little more bang for his bucks. ( literally)



Again, The depression for America ended in Roosevelt’s first year in office. The country was officially in recovery because GDP stopped going down and started rising. Depression and recovery have formal definitions so these statements are not debatable given the statistics I've already quoted.




First off, let's be clear - I am equally, if not more critical of Hoover. Hoover's policies were the catalyst for the great depression.



Claiming Hoover’s policies were the same as Roosevelt’s is not reasonable. Hoover literally was letting the economy run it's course, with disastrous results. FDR was actively intervening in the economy from the moment he took the oath. As I said he took the oath while a banking crisis was ongoing and immediately he intervened, something Hoover had not done either in 1933, or in the two previous banking crisis’s which occurred under his watch.





As for the claim both Hoover and Roosevelt were deficit spenders.. That too is not creditable. The government was actually running surpluses under Hoover while the country was in Depression in 1929. And FDR narrowed the gap between receipts and outlays he inherited from Hoover in 1933. FDR just about balanced the budget in 1937 before the country slide back into recession!! That can only be attributed to incredible fiscal restraint. It is this strict adherence to fiscal responsibility which most economists today believe caused the recession of 1937-38.



You will also note that FDR resisted deficit spending right up until WWII started, as noted by the steep increase in slope of government outlays accompanied with the widening of the gap between outlays and receipts in 1942. (we were attacked December 7 1941..)


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/launchpad/5577/philo/budget/bdgt07.gif


I don't believe any Criticism of Roosevelt is credible. He is already claimed to be the "most liberal" American President ever by his detractors. With 20-20 hind sight the only criticism, they can make of him; is he wasn't liberal enough!!! He should have deficit spent more.. Again who can't be criticized with the benefit of hind sight? Even a man like Roosevelt likely the boldest greatest most innovative President in American History.



Let’s not forget after battling with big industry in order to right the economic ship of the country. It was Roosevelt who had the intelligence and understanding to turn to these very same men and make them allies in re-arming the country for WWII. Can you imagine?

[Larry]

(Removed post.)

[luckydevil]

Left wing ideologues do the same thing to Ronald Reagan, utterly denying any value to his presidency. Both understand that controlling history is vitally important to shaping the long term views of the electorate.

I also want to address this part. I am glad that left wing "ideologues" are challenging Ronald Reagan history. He was easily the most overrated president of the 20th century. Are you sugggesting that left wingers should just sit back and let conservatives historians spew nonsense about how Reagan ended the cold war. The notion that increased military spending is what brought down communism is laughable and should rightly be mocked.

[Riggo-toni]

Again, The depression for America ended in Roosevelt’s first year in office. The country was officially in recovery because GDP stopped going down and started rising. Depression and recovery have formal definitions so these statements are not debatable given the statistics I've already quoted.....

Hoover literally was letting the economy run it's course, with disastrous results. FDR was actively intervening in the economy from the moment he took the oath.


7 years later, and unemployment was STILL at 17%. I have no interest in arguing semantics. Technically you can claim there was some kind of recovery/upswing, and that by definition that means the depression ended in 32, but there were still soup kitchens and a large segment of the population out of work for a length of time unprecedented and unsurpassed in American history. I STRONGLY disagree with the legend that Hoover was "letting the economy run it's[sic] course" - he raised income taxes by 120% and started a trade war. This is what caused the Depression. My contention is that if FDR had REVERSED Hoover's policies and cut taxes back to the levels they were during the Harding/Coolidge years, and negotiated trade deals, the recovery would've been considerably faster and far more complete. Instead he raised taxes further, and instituted withholdings, leading to the massive expansion of government. He regulated manufacturing wages, which stunted the growth of employment. There were a number of bubbles and crashes in preceding ages in American history, but since they happened before Wilson made federal income taxes constitutional, each was truly forced to run its course....and none was ever so severe as the economic crisis of the 1930s, not even close.

We can debate this back and forth forever, since I can't prove what I believe would have happened, since such policies were never pursued, but take a good look at recent Presidents who were clueless enough to raise taxes and spending during an economic downturn: Reagan and Bush I. Reagan's first term was consequently marred by the deepest post-war recession, and Bush 39 ended up with the longest post-war recession.

[Predicto]

I also want to address this part. I am glad that left wing "ideologues" are challenging Ronald Reagan history. He was easily the most overrated president of the 20th century. Are you sugggesting that left wingers should just sit back and let conservatives historians spew nonsense about how Reagan ended the cold war. The notion that increased military spending is what brought down communism is laughable and should rightly be mocked.

That's not what I said. I agree that it is a joke to claim that Reagan brought down the Soviet Union.

What I am saying is that left wing idealogues find it necessary to attack EVERYTHING about Ronald Reagan because Reagan is The Conservative Icon. Meanwhile, conservatives give Reagan credit for curing the common cold, and try to name every government facility in the land after him, while at the same time totally denigrating FDR and his accomplishments. It is efforts to remake history by both sides.

[JMS]

7 years later, and unemployment was STILL at 17%. I have no interest in arguing semantics. Technically you can claim there was some kind of recovery/upswing, and that by definition that means the depression ended in 32, but there were still soup kitchens and a large segment of the population out of work for a length of time unprecedented and unsurpassed in American history.


That's misleading.. four years after Roosevelt took office unemployment was down to 10%. Fact is in 38 the country fell back into recession. And it's not that "technically I claim" there was "some kind of recovery/upswing". As I've shown there were many economic indicators which demonstrated this. Most importantly GDP.

As for soup kitches and unemployment, that's more indicative of where the economy was when Roosevelt took office than it is to the job Roosevelt did in office.



I STRONGLY disagree with the legend that Hoover was "letting the economy run it's[sic] course" - he raised income taxes by 120% and started a trade war. This is what caused the Depression.


I guess those are good examples of Hoover doing something. It still doesn't change the fact that Hoover basically left the economy to run it's coarse. I guess your point is he didn't do nothing. And you did make that point.

This isn't just a matter of symantics. A Recession is defined as a decline in any country's GDP, or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters. An economic depression is defined as a severe recession. The Great Depression started is some countries as early as 1928.
It can not be said that Smoot Howley tarrif act of 1930 caused an event which predates 1930. I would agree with you that Smoot Howley made the depression worse.



My contention is that if FDR had REVERSED Hoover's policies and cut taxes back to the levels they were during the Harding/Coolidge years, and negotiated trade deals, the recovery would've been considerably faster and far more complete.


And I don't think you are being realistic. We can't get mutual trade agreements with countries today much less in 1933. Also cutting taxes is irrelivent when 25% of your people are unemployed and 150 billion dollars has evaporated from your economy. Remember in 1933 international trade was not what it is today. Today our economy is interdependent upon any number of countries and major trading partners. In 1030's Germany France and England who weer proximal to each other really didn't share interdependent economies at all, much less America. That's one of the thing that made the war possible.

Roosevelt didn't make a mistake when he put more money in the hands of the people, and increased money in the economy. His mistake was he didn't do more deficite spending.



Instead he raised taxes further, and instituted withholdings, leading to the massive expansion of government. He regulated manufacturing wages, which stunted the growth of employment.


You're claiming he stunted employment growth from what you think it could have been. Fact is employment grew across the board almost immediately when Roosevelt took office.



There were a number of bubbles and crashes in preceding ages in American history, but since they happened before Wilson made federal income taxes constitutional, each was truly forced to run its course....and none was ever so severe as the economic crisis of the 1930s, not even close.


Now we are getting off Roosevelt.

What you say is true but it's true because the economy wasn't nearly as prosperous/developed before Wilson and WWI. We largely had an agrarian economy before WWI, money itself wasn't as necessary because so many people made their living with their hands working the farms. Even the industry workers before WWI didn't make a decent wage, nor did they have a decent living.

I mean if you are arguing for an end to income tax then more power to you. But just so agree, we wouldnt' have won WWI, WWII, or the Cold war without income tax. Hell we likely wouldn't even have a standing army.

I don't know what you are aguing here for. A return to the dawn of the industrial age when there were no protections for the workers? 2% of the people holding 80% of the wealth?



We can debate this back and forth forever, since I can't prove what I believe would have happened, since such policies were never pursued, but take a good look at recent Presidents who were clueless enough to raise taxes and spending during an economic downturn: Reagan and Bush I. Reagan's first term was consequently marred by the deepest post-war recession, and Bush 39 ended up with the longest post-war recession.

I'll give you Bush I.. that was a long recession. Again, Bush didn't pass an economic bill for almost a year after the recession hit. But Reagan's economy was never as poor as Jimmy Carters economy which preceeded him and which Reagan inherited. Raising taxes isn't the worst thing in the world. Clinton raised taxes. It was his ( and Newt's ) ability to hold on spending which balanced the budget and created the great economies of the 1990's.. I'd much rather have had that than Bush II's cutting taxes while increasing spending and coming close to bankrupting the country.

[rincewind]

That's not what I said. I agree that it is a joke to claim that Reagan brought down the Soviet Union.

What I am saying is that left wing idealogues find it necessary to attack EVERYTHING about Ronald Reagan because Reagan is The Conservative Icon. Meanwhile, conservatives give Reagan credit for curing the common cold, and try to name every government facility in the land after him, while at the same time totally denigrating FDR and his accomplishments. It is efforts to remake history by both sides.


Naming an airport after Reagan is one of the biggest slaps in the face to the working class I can think of. Guess it was his last big :finger: to communism.

[JMS]

I also want to address this part. I am glad that left wing "ideologues" are challenging Ronald Reagan history. He was easily the most overrated president of the 20th century. Are you sugggesting that left wingers should just sit back and let conservatives historians spew nonsense about how Reagan ended the cold war. The notion that increased military spending is what brought down communism is laughable and should rightly be mocked.

I don't think Reagan was among our greatest Presidents. But I do believe he was in the next teir of great Presidents. Greatest President in my lifetime anyway.

Since WWII who would you say was better than Reagan?

Eisenhower? Perhaps... but no He inherited so much ( economy) and didn't really solve any problems ( did end Korea, via slight of hand.. ). If you are knocking Ronnie because he spent to much money, you can't then like Eisenhower who spent more just because the country could afford it better during his terms in office.
Kennedy, wasn't in office long enough.
Johnston, great legacy, poor President. one term Vietnam.. nuf said.
Nixon, Discraced the office more than any other President with the possible exception of Bill Clinton.
Carter.......... Our greatest Ex President, was one of our worst Presidents. Total failure economically, foreign policy was principled but ultimately a disaster. The best thing you can say about Carter is he didn't declair war on anybody while lieing about his justification for it.
Ronnie... Inherited a bad economy, made it better. Inherited a bad foreign policy, made it better. Inherited a country demoralized and doubting itself and reassured it and made it proud again. I do give Ronnie credit for ending the cold war as he did. Did he over spend. What's a world without the soviet union worth? Ronnie spent less and the country got more out of Ronnie's spending than Bush II's spending.
Bush I, Great foreign policy guy, poor on domestic issues.
Clinton, Maybe our greatest caretaker of the country ( economy). total failure as moral leader.
Bush II, Maybe our worst President in the history of the country.
Personally, I would go

Reagan
Eisenhower
Clinton ( could be 2, likely will be in a few years.. left office in 6th or seventh place, Bush II has made Clinton look like a peach. ).
Kennedy ( shouldn't really be in the pole just not in office long enough, but I'm Catholic and opinionated so he goes 4.. )
Johnston ( Not a good president, but did some amazing things like the civil rights bill. Huge balls.. )
Nixon ( could go anywhere from 4-7) I'm opinionated cause I lived through water gate and the 1960's, so I'm likely scoring him too low. Still pissed at him for vietnam. Ran on a end the war campagn and then more soldiers died while he was in office than all the other Presidents combined. He ended the war, but he took his dammed time about it. He was slick willy before slick willy. Still hate the bastard. Did open up china so he get's some points for that.
Bush I ( good man, likely a better president than a polititian, Wasn't bad at anything, but just wasn't quite good enough on the economy, was great at foreign policy ).
Carter ( good man, ahead of his time by a decade on foreign policy, economic desaster, could not deligate, over all poor president )
Bush II ( idiot in a clown nose ).

[Henry]

Since WWII who would you say was better than Reagan?

Truman? :)

[JMS]

Truman? :)


Clearly Truman was a truely Great President. One of our top five..But he was President during WWII and is thus out of the running.

Greatest Presidents Ever...


Washington
FDR
Lincoln
Teddy
Truman

[Henry]

Clearly Truman was a truely Great President. One of our top five..But he was President during WWII and is thus out of the running.

Fine. Be that way. :)


Greatest Presidents Ever...


Washington
FDR
Lincoln
Teddy
Truman


Not exactly my list. But pretty close.

[JMS]

Fine. Be that way. :)

I'm always that way!!




Not exactly my list. But pretty close.

Don't be coy. Who do you leave off? Who would you add? Jefferson? Had a good first term, but poor second term...

[Henry]

Don't be coy. Who do you leave off? Who would you add? Jefferson? Had a good first term, but poor second term...

Well, just because it's getting off topic and the last thing we need is another thread where everyone starts listing their top five whatever, but since you asked:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1227077&postcount=63

1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3. FDR
4. Truman
5. Jefferson/Adams (tie)

I give the last spot to Jefferson and Adams because they had the almost impossible task of succeeding Washington, and they both managed to shape and maintain the integrity of the office despite the fact that they were not larger-than-life the way Washington was.

That said, TR's a good choice for the top five too.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Greatest Preisdent ever is James K Polk

He did what he said he would in his campaingn, increased the size of the nation, then after 4 years left the White House. Nobody did more in less time, and actually kept his campaign promises then James K Polk. And to boot, he left office after he did what he said he would do!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Polk


James Knox Polk (November 2, 1795 – June 15, 1849) was the eleventh President of the United States, serving from March 4, 1845 to March 4, 1849. Polk was born in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, but mostly lived in and represented the state of Tennessee. A Democrat, Polk served as Speaker of the House (1835–1839) and Governor of Tennessee (1839–1841) prior to becoming president.

A firm supporter of Andrew Jackson and his beliefs, Polk was the last "strong" pre-American Civil War president.[1] Polk is noted for his foreign policy successes. He threatened war with Britain then backed away and split the ownership of the Northwest with Britain. He is even more famous for leading the successful Mexican–American War. He lowered the tariff and established a treasury system that lasted until 1913. A "dark horse" candidate in 1844, he was the first president who retired after one term and did not seek re-election. He died three months after his term ended.

As a Democrat committed to geographic expansion (or "Manifest Destiny"), he overrode Whig objections and was responsible for the largest expansion of the nation's territory. It exceeded the Louisiana Purchase. Polk secured the Oregon Territory (including Washington, Oregon and Idaho), then purchased 1.2 million square miles (3.1 million km²) through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican–American War. In the end, Polk completed the acquisition of most of the current contiguous 48 states.

The expansion re-opened a furious debate over allowing slavery in the new territories. The controversy was inadequately arbitrated by the Compromise of 1850, and only found its ultimate resolution on the battlefields of the U. S. Civil War. Polk signed the Walker Tariff that brought an era of near free trade to the country until 1861. He oversaw the opening of the U.S. Naval Academy and the Smithsonian, the groundbreaking for the Washington Monument, and the issuance of the first postage stamps in the United States, introduced by his Postmaster General Cave Johnson. He was the first President of the United States to be photographed frequently while in office.[2] Scholars have ranked him 8th to 12th on the list of greatest presidents for his ability to set an agenda and achieve all of it.

[chomerics]

it's always fun when history buffs and economists get into arguments :)

:munchout: