U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you think FDR was a good President?
Yes 84 59.57%
No 49 34.75%
Not sure 8 5.67%
Voters: 141. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-29-2016, 07:35 AM
 
Location: St. Louis
3,287 posts, read 1,613,257 times
Reputation: 2158

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Perhaps you should read the UCLA's Economists' accurate analysis (liberal educational institution, by the way ).
Still didn't answer my question, I see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-29-2016, 07:41 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
4,370 posts, read 5,144,310 times
Reputation: 3896
No, he was not a good president. The main reason is that he took credit for an economic recovery he actually had nothing to do with. So this revisionist history has become the goto example for keynesianism. We have had an undying, unflinching loyalty to keynesian economics, that we're on the hole we are in now. But because everyone believes that FDR was able to turn the economy around, we keep with the whole "debt is good" myth. That's a problem. The thing is, Keynesianism has been LONG LONG debunked. And it is only embraced, because it gives the government relevance when it comes to economics. Austrian and Chicago school economist have a much much better track record, and actually have valuable insight. Because of FDR, we give nobel peace prizes to guys like Paul Krugman, who is a hack economist by any true measurement of the word.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2016, 07:41 AM
 
66,500 posts, read 30,325,536 times
Reputation: 8668
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer View Post
Still didn't answer my question, I see.
Who cares what I say? Read the UCLA Economists' accurate analysis, already posted.

Do you always only believe yourself and your own opinion? Or do you do what we wise people do and seek out the opinions and analysis of those much more informed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2016, 07:50 AM
 
Location: Texas
35,259 posts, read 19,292,205 times
Reputation: 20861
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Those of us who voted NO don't reject the FACT that FDR prolonged the Depression by at least 7 years.
All you have to do is back up your assertion. And that means with research, not conservative opinion pieces.

We've all heard this before from the right wing deniers who'd love for historians to shift blame for the Great Depression from GOP policy to FDR.

But it'll never sell.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2016, 08:07 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
4,370 posts, read 5,144,310 times
Reputation: 3896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
All you have to do is back up your assertion. And that means with research, not conservative opinion pieces.

We've all heard this before from the right wing deniers who'd love for historians to shift blame for the Great Depression from GOP policy to FDR.

But it'll never sell.

Basic economic theory honestly. FDR mass interventionalism couldn't get the economy moving, and only made things worse. The same way QE really doesn't solve any issues, just make things worse in general.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2016, 08:08 AM
 
2,474 posts, read 862,888 times
Reputation: 1726
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Those of us who voted NO don't reject the FACT that FDR prolonged the Depression by at least 7 years.
The classic definition of a depression or recession is a prolonged decrease in GDP. US GDP fell from 1929 to 1933, the year Roosevelt took office, then went positive thereafter, except for one year (1938). In fact, we had two of the largest ever non-wartime increases in GDP in 1934 and 1936. Those who claim the Great Depression lasted through the 1930's are wrong, in the classic sense. Unemployment did stay elevated until WWII, which is why it probably didn't feel like a recovery to many people.
Contrary to some on this board, there are many economists who say that Roosevelt's policies didn't go far enough, which is why recovery took so long. We can see this pattern in the Great Recession of 2009, in that the US, which injected substantial money into the economy through stimulus spending, fared much better than many countries in Europe which implemented austerity measures.
Here's an interesting fact: 9 of the last 10 recessions began under Republican administrations.


Bush II (2001 and 2009)
Bush I (1990)
Reagan (1981)
Carter (1980)
Nixon (1969 and 1973)
Eisenhower (1953, 1957, 1960)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2016, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
4,370 posts, read 5,144,310 times
Reputation: 3896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58 View Post
The classic definition of a depression or recession is a prolonged decrease in GDP. US GDP fell from 1929 to 1933, the year Roosevelt took office, then went positive thereafter, except for one year (1938). In fact, we had two of the largest ever non-wartime increases in GDP in 1934 and 1936. Those who claim the Great Depression lasted through the 1930's are wrong, in the classic sense. Unemployment did stay elevated until WWII, which is why it probably didn't feel like a recovery to many people.
Contrary to some on this board, there are many economists who say that Roosevelt's policies didn't go far enough, which is why recovery took so long. We can see this pattern in the Great Recession of 2009, in that the US, which injected substantial money into the economy through stimulus spending, fared much better than many countries in Europe which implemented austerity measures.
Here's an interesting fact: 9 of the last 10 recessions began under Republican administrations.


Bush II (2001 and 2009)
Bush I (1990)
Reagan (1981)
Carter (1980)
Nixon (1969 and 1973)
Eisenhower (1953, 1957, 1960)



How does government spending actually help the economy? It's a common fallacy purported by Keynesian shills. We've been running that playbook forever. The thing is, "if he didn't go far enough", then how "far is far enough"? Most economist can never tell you that number. They never cut off the printing presses, they never stop spending money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2016, 08:22 AM
 
Location: NY, NY
1,208 posts, read 1,459,739 times
Reputation: 1198
The fact that this poll is even close shows how far the US has fallen. Do Americans even attempt to understand history anymore?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2016, 08:31 AM
 
2,474 posts, read 862,888 times
Reputation: 1726
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913 View Post
How does government spending actually help the economy? It's a common fallacy purported by Keynesian shills. We've been running that playbook forever. The thing is, "if he didn't go far enough", then how "far is far enough"? Most economist can never tell you that number. They never cut off the printing presses, they never stop spending money.
Most consider the economy to be robust when there is a lot of activity - people buying stuff, companies making stuff and hiring people. When people lose confidence they stop buying, companies stop making and hiring and investors stop investing -the whole thing grinds to a halt. If the government steps in at these times and provides cheap money for investors to invest, and invests itself in infrastructure projects, then hiring goes up and ideally people regain confidence and the economy gets moving again.
You say its a fallacy, yet every time we adopt a laissez-faire approach (1920's and 2000's) it results in a crash.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2016, 08:40 AM
 
2,474 posts, read 862,888 times
Reputation: 1726
Besides the Great Depression, Roosevelt probably saved the world for democracy by supplying Britain with arms and food under Lend-Lease, when it was the last holdout against the Nazis. He did this over the objections of isolationists, mostly Republicans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top