Guess who said the following: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” Was it Sarah Palin? Rush Limbaugh? Karl Rove?
Not even close. It was Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury under Franklin D. Roosevelt and one of FDR’s closest advisers. He added, “after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . And an enormous debt to boot!”
This is just one of the remarkable and eye-opening facts in a must-read book titled “New Deal or Raw Deal?” by Professor Burton W. Folsom, Jr., of Hillsdale College.
Ordinarily, what happened in the 1930s might be something to be left for historians to be concerned about. But the very same kinds of policies that were tried— and failed— during the 1930s are being carried out in Washington today, with the advocates of such policies often invoking FDR’s New Deal as a model.
Franklin D. Roosevelt blamed the country’s woes on the problems he inherited from his predecessor, much as Barack Obama does today. But unemployment was 20 percent in the spring of 1939, six long years after Herbert Hoover had left the White House.
Whole generations have been “educated” to believe that the Roosevelt administration is what got this country out of the Great Depression. History text books by famous scholars like Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., of Harvard and Henry Steele Commager of Columbia have enshrined FDR as a historic savior of this country, and lesser lights in the media and elsewhere have perpetuated the legend.
Although Professor Schlesinger admitted that he had little interest in economics, that did not stop him from making sweeping statements about what a great economic achievement the New Deal was.
Professors Commager and Morris of Columbia likewise declared: “The character of the Republican ascendancy of the twenties had been pervasively negative; the character of the New Deal was overwhelmingly positive.” Anyone unfamiliar with the history of that era might never suspect from such statements that the 1920s were a decade of unprecedented prosperity and the 1930s were a decade of the deepest and longest-lasting depression in American history.
FDR – a principal purveyor of the far-left philosophy: "Don't let a good crisis go to waste."
FDR followed Keynesian economics quite well. The problem was Keynesian economics. See The Kamikaze Economics of John Maynard Keynes which was published in the online magazine the Intellectual Conservative
Enough already. The great depression was so different than what we are experiencing now that comparisons, other than a huge credit and banking failure occurred is of little value.
Consider this–There were no safety nets. When the banks failed –that was it. over 20% of the workforce at the beginning was engaged in agriculture, and many lost their farms. Their was not any foreign debt. Most of the monetary gold in the world was in Fort Knox, etc., etc,.
The biggest difference is we had patriotic leadership that wanted to succeed, both in government and in independent universities & colleges..
Who do you think is paying for those safety nets? Those who lost their farms lost them because of FDR's pricing policies! Most of the gold was in the peoples hands as well as Fort Knox. But the crisis was worsened when FDR froze the price of gold, issued confiscation orders and told the American population they could no longer own it. After he bought it at his arbitrary fixed price he raised that price and used the money to fund bigger government and add to the treasury, not caring who that hurt. You had better read more history before commenting here or others will also hand your head to you on a platter.
FDR was routinely accused of being a fascist but this was before fascism was considered horribly evil. I've read in newspapers printed online in the era that Hoover feared that 1936 would be the last election this country saw…
“There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom. So it was that a revolution took place within the form. Like the hagfish, the New Deal entered the old form and devoured its meaning from within. The revolutionaries were inside; the defenders were outside. A government that had been supported by the people and so controlled by the people became one that supported the people and so controlled them…" Garet Garrett
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/garrett1.html
"For a significant illustration of what has happened to words, of the double meaning that inhabits them, put in contrast what the New Deal means when it speaks of preserving the American system of free private enterprise and what American business means when it speaks of defending it. To the New Deal these words, the American system of free private enterprise, stand for a conquered province. To the businessman the same words stand for a world that is in danger and may have to be defended….You do not defend a world that is already lost. When was it lost? That you cannot say precisely. It is a point for the revolutionary historian to ponder. We know only that it was surrendered peacefully, without a struggle, almost unawares. There was no day, no hour, no celebration of the event; and yet definitely, the ultimate power of initiative did pass from the hands of private enterprise to government. There it is and there it will remain until, if ever, it shall be reconquered. Certainly government will never surrender without a struggle.” Garet Garrett
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/garrett1.html
The trouble is that there are about 80 different theories "explaining" the Great Depression. Overinestment, underinvestment, sunspots, oversavings, undersavings. The fact is that Humpty-Dumpty cannot be put back together again. Unfortunately we cannot predict the future and we have a difficult time explaining the past. We can say some things like if you; increase taxes on something; you will get less of it than you otherwise would. In fact, it is possible that if you increase taxes it could happen that you would get more of it.. Also I think it is pretty clear that Roosevelt never really got us out of the depression. The war certainly didn't. Drafting 16 million men and turning American production into a killing machine has nothing to do with getting out of the depression. In itself it was all very dpressing.
080, you r an idiot… The war was exactly what brought us out of the Depression. If you were unemployed during to war, you either didn't want to work or couldn't work. When the war ended, America's coffers were full to the brim. The unemployment rate in 1939 was 20%, compared to 10% when FDR took office for his first term. The war was thrust upon America and a sleeping giant awakened to a task (survival) in way the world has never seen before or since. We carried the free world on our back and have been doing so ever since. We are still capable of such but unfortunately we have a president that in his own words says "America is not exceptional". America is now paying a dear price for having elected such an egotistical twit
Just a little more information on the war. FDR wanted to help England but his hands were tied politically. Japan could have been talked out of China and we could have then averted the attack by Japan on us on Dec 7, 1941. FDR knew that if we were attacked by Japan this would be a great way to enter the war, he thus prodded Japan into acting by his beligerance (sp) and he was rewarded by an attack. These issues are discussed in the memoirs of FDR's Ambassador to Japan's writing. The USA was not wanting WWII because of the previous war WWI and what it did to us with Wilson.
I don't agree that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to be bombed. I do think he was ghung ho about war though. A lot more ghung ho than the country at the time.
It's a theory, I don't buy it. I know there is evidecne to support it; J.Edgar believed it, but from my perspective it gives too much credit to FDR. It presumes FDR and his cult were clever enough to manipulate such a widespread conspiracy against Japan as well as teh people of the Untied States. From what I read of FDR he was clueless, a great talker but clueless.
The more likely scenario is that the largess government as any unproductive beaurocracy despite being run by brilliant people was as a whole "inept". There were warning signs of pending Japanese attacks but these now tell-tale signs like warnings of 9-11 were buried in red-tape.
It can if students are educated with a balanced approach to American History, Government and Economics. Politics in public schools needs to be reserved for the Social Studies department. History books that are used been to be neutral and report all sides. Teachers need to be balanced as well. Look at the colleges today. Why so many young Liberals? Most of their professors are Liberals, Socialists and Marxists.
What !! Japan could've "been talked out of China !!! Do you mean BEFORE OR AFTER they slaughtered 10 million Chinese ? Man ! Some of you people would throw your own mother under the bus for the sake of your partisan ideology . kwg1 , better go study your pre WW2 history , before making such utterly ignorant remarks .
Its definately true that FDR wanted to go to war and the country didn't want to. He kept sending aid to England even when the people didn't want to. He was one of those peace loving democrats that talked up war for six years telling the American people of what is coming. Perhaps it was a self-fulfilling prophecy created when expectations are created.
Personally I wonder if WWI and WWII could have been avoided if it wasn't for the progressive movement. They are evil vile nasty people that should be thrown away.
WW-2 became necessary when the Senate voted to not join the League of Nations..WW-2 certainly guaranteed we join the NWO via the United Nations.
I dabbled several years as an economics student and bought the Keynsian philosphy hook line and sinker, although what I bought was the watered-down version billed as New Keynsian. New Keynsians promote government stimulus on "productive" endevors (effects with an economic muliplier greater than 1) during recessions. It seems like a reasonable theory, the only problem being determining "productive" endevors. Succesful enterpise is not an easy accomplishment, if it were we would all be rich. It is far more likely to pick the winning lottery numbers rather than have a central bearocracy brainstorm a productive venture. This is why enterpise needs to be free to sprout as many times and places as possible.
Gold Confiscation: Could it Happen Again? watch this http://www.youtube.com/edjuh10