Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Dec 29th, 2003, 02:24 PM        I've got that itch again...
How FDR's New Deal Harmed Millions of Poor People
by By Jim Powell

Jim Powell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is author of FDR's Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Crown Forum, 2003).

Democratic presidential candidates as well as some conservative intellectuals, are suggesting that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is a good model for government policy today.

Mounting evidence, however, makes clear that poor people were principal victims of the New Deal. The evidence has been developed by dozens of economists -- including two Nobel Prize winners -- at Brown, Columbia, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, the University of California (Berkeley) and University of Chicago, among other universities.

New Deal programs were financed by tripling federal taxes from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and so-called "excess profits" taxes all went up.

The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise taxes levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios -- these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which meant that the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats," one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent."

Until 1937, New Deal revenue from excise taxes exceeded the combined revenue from both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. It wasn't until 1942, in the midst of World War II, that income taxes exceeded excise taxes for the first time under FDR. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs.

New Deal taxes were major job destroyers during the 1930s, prolonging unemployment that averaged 17%. Higher business taxes meant that employers had less money for growth and jobs. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls made it more expensive for employers to hire people, which discouraged hiring.

Other New Deal programs destroyed jobs, too. For example, the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) cut back production and forced wages above market levels, making it more expensive for employers to hire people - blacks alone were estimated to have lost some 500,000 jobs because of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) cut back farm production and devastated black tenant farmers who needed work. The National Labor Relations Act (1935) gave unions monopoly bargaining power in workplaces and led to violent strikes and compulsory unionization of mass production industries. Unions secured above-market wages, triggering big layoffs and helping to usher in the depression of 1938.

What about the good supposedly done by New Deal spending programs? These didn't increase the number of jobs in the economy, because the money spent on New Deal projects came from taxpayers who consequently had less money to spend on food, coats, cars, books and other things that would have stimulated the economy. This is a classic case of the seen versus the unseen -- we can see the jobs created by New Deal spending, but we cannot see jobs destroyed by New Deal taxing.

For defenders of the New Deal, perhaps the most embarrassing revelation about New Deal spending programs is they channeled money AWAY from the South, the poorest region in the United States. The largest share of New Deal spending and loan programs went to political "swing" states in the West and East - where incomes were at least 60% higher than in the South. As an incumbent, FDR didn't see any point giving much money to the South where voters were already overwhelmingly on his side.

Americans needed bargains, but FDR hammered consumers -- and millions had little money. His National Industrial Recovery Act forced consumers to pay above-market prices for goods and services, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act forced Americans to pay more for food. Moreover, FDR banned discounting by signing the Anti-Chain Store Act (1936) and the Retail Price Maintenance Act (1937).

Poor people suffered from other high-minded New Deal policies like the Tennessee Valley Authority monopoly. Its dams flooded an estimated 750,000 acres, an area about the size of Rhode Island, and TVA agents dispossessed thousands of people. Poor black sharecroppers, who didn't own property, got no compensation.

FDR might not have intended to harm millions of poor people, but that's what happened. We should evaluate government policies according to their actual consequences, not their good intentions.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Dec 29th, 2003, 02:32 PM       
That 'itch' is puberty.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
MatthewCleveland MatthewCleveland is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
MatthewCleveland is probably a spambot
Old Dec 29th, 2003, 03:34 PM        Re: I've got that itch again...
Now here you go argueing FDR's new deal with out mentioning that actually reasons for these laws. You cited all problems that resulted from them, but none of the sucesses. The consumer taxes you talked about didn't punish the needy. The needy had no where enough money to buy radio's and such. The consumer taxes were meant for the upper middle class taht still had some wealth left in them.

The National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) also cut back production because factory owners were faced with underconsumption coupled with overproduction. Warehouses were stockpiled with thousands upon thousands of consumer goods with no market to sell them too. This act forced industry to cut back its production to *STAY* in business. At their current rate they would of driven themselves out of business. It was necessary to cut back production and growth in order to reestablish a strong manufacturing base and build its self back up.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) was intended to raise farm prices back to thier pre-Depression levels. Farmers having lost all thier money on credit based investments were losing thier mortages to banks while farm prices were dangerously low because of high production. This act paid farmers to leave thier land fallow as to decrease the supply in order to stabilize prices. The governmetn fixed grain and corn prices in order to bring stability back to the government.

Your views on the National Labor Relations Act is jsut disgusting. Prior to this act blacklisting and spying on union meetings was common practice. People were fired in mass droves as cheap immagrant and black laborers took thier places by the droves. The National Labor Relations Act allowed unions to lobby for better conditions (which are inarguably horrific) along with job security and higher wages. This helped also bring stability to economy as people could be assured that they would be able to keep thier jobs.

The Tennesse valley Authority "monopoly" brough jobs to the south. It put men to work and allowed them to send checks home to thier family. It created cheaper power supplies from the hydroelectric dams created.


FDR perfectly intended to bring good to the people and stability to our economy. He brought us out of the depression and led us through a war. He is with out a doubt the most influential American icon in our modern history. He had strength and courage and dedication to this country. And if you think we shoudl evaulate our politics I think you should take a better look at our current administration instead of argueing how FDR's New Deal harmed millions of people. You can't please everyone, you can't bring them all prosperity, but FDR's new deal brought us to where we are today.

Matthew Cleveland
__________________
To be wise is to udnerstand you know nothing.
Wisdom is the tolerance of others.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Dec 29th, 2003, 04:15 PM        Re: I've got that itch again...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewCleveland
FDR's new deal brought us to where we are today.
It brought me to my computer? Oh my god!

Government out of my house!!!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Brandon Brandon is offline
The Center Square
Brandon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Migrant worker
Brandon is probably a spambot
Old Dec 29th, 2003, 04:25 PM       
HEY EVERYBODY! LET'S RAPE FDR'S CORPSE AGAIN!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
MatthewCleveland MatthewCleveland is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
MatthewCleveland is probably a spambot
Old Dec 29th, 2003, 04:26 PM       
FDR is my hero, he's like "|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|" awesome.
__________________
To be wise is to udnerstand you know nothing.
Wisdom is the tolerance of others.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Dec 29th, 2003, 04:28 PM       
Mathew,

None us really pay attention to OAO that much or give much credence to what he posts although we may humor him with a response every now and again.

Sincererly,


The Rest Of The Board
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
MatthewCleveland MatthewCleveland is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
MatthewCleveland is probably a spambot
Old Dec 29th, 2003, 05:03 PM       
Can't blame you with views like his, fucking laissaz faire republican pig.
__________________
To be wise is to udnerstand you know nothing.
Wisdom is the tolerance of others.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Dec 29th, 2003, 05:07 PM       
Duuuuude. I'm a dude!
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Dec 29th, 2003, 05:18 PM        Re: I've got that itch again...
It's fun to debate with Keynesians...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewCleveland
Now here you go argueing FDR's new deal with out mentioning that actually reasons for these laws. You cited all problems that resulted from them, but none of the sucesses. The consumer taxes you talked about didn't punish the needy. The needy had no where enough money to buy radio's and such. The consumer taxes were meant for the upper middle class taht still had some wealth left in them.
And what stimulates job growth? Hmm... I don't know... higher effective demand i.e. consumption? Way to go, FDR; snatch that money so that entrepeneurs can not get back on their feet again!!!

Quote:
The National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) also cut back production because factory owners were faced with underconsumption coupled with overproduction. Warehouses were stockpiled with thousands upon thousands of consumer goods with no market to sell them too. This act forced industry to cut back its production to *STAY* in business. At their current rate they would of driven themselves out of business. It was necessary to cut back production and growth in order to reestablish a strong manufacturing base and build its self back up.
I agree with the comment that production was over demand levels; however, the problem was with turning the wages above market levels. That was a part of the Keynesian reinflation plan which not only destroyed jobs, but horribly failed. Production would have scaled itself back if the government would have, you know, let the business fail.

Quote:
The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) was intended to raise farm prices back to thier pre-Depression levels. Farmers having lost all thier money on credit based investments were losing thier mortages to banks while farm prices were dangerously low because of high production. This act paid farmers to leave thier land fallow as to decrease the supply in order to stabilize prices. The governmetn fixed grain and corn prices in order to bring stability back to the government.
You know what else would have raised incentive for farmers to leave their land? Oh, gee, I don't know... keeping the price of food so low that farmers had to leave? Yes, that's it. Farmers would hav left themselves if they could have found more lucrative jobs. Saying that higher food prices was needed is asinine; the poor could hardly pay for meals as it was. Fixed prices cause shortages or surpluses, since they do not respond to the market. In other words, it was a waste - unless, of course, you believe in the Keynesian reinflation plan.

Quote:
Your views on the National Labor Relations Act is jsut disgusting. Prior to this act blacklisting and spying on union meetings was common practice. People were fired in mass droves as cheap immagrant and black laborers took thier places by the droves. The National Labor Relations Act allowed unions to lobby for better conditions (which are inarguably horrific) along with job security and higher wages. This helped also bring stability to economy as people could be assured that they would be able to keep thier jobs.
Better conditions for who? The union workers. Meanwhile, those immigrants and blacks have to starve, or live on a welfare check. In any case, better working conditions could have been provided with a wage deduction, which would not have been "inarguably horrific" if prices had been allowed to fall.

Quote:
The Tennesse valley Authority "monopoly" brough jobs to the south. It put men to work and allowed them to send checks home to thier family. It created cheaper power supplies from the hydroelectric dams created.
But it would have been nowhere near as productive as market jobs, which would have been created if only prices and wages hadn't been held high and distorted.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Dec 29th, 2003, 05:39 PM       
You really think that a higher profit margin would serve as an incentive for businesses to created better working conditions without the unions prodding them in that direction? I guarantee they would have continued to try to get away with as little improvement in working conditions as they could have and pocketed the rest or used it for some other form of capital improvement.
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Protoclown Protoclown is offline
The Goddamned Batman
Protoclown's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Protoclown is probably a spambot
Old Dec 29th, 2003, 05:53 PM       
FDR was a good president.
__________________
"It's like I'm livin' in a stinkin' poop rainbow." - Cordelia Burbank
Reply With Quote
  #13  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Dec 29th, 2003, 06:01 PM       
LOL @ Max
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Drew Katsikas Drew Katsikas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Drew Katsikas is probably a spambot
Old Dec 29th, 2003, 06:11 PM       
Good job OAO! Let's expose FDR for the heartless commie that he was!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Dec 29th, 2003, 06:35 PM       
Where all the "war improves the economy" people? I've heard some people claim that is what got our nation out of the economic slump during FDR's term. Possibly that's true during a war on the grand scale as WWII when it puts your production over 100% ... yes, it's possible. It hasn't seemed to be the case in any of our wars since. Our nation enjoyed one of it's biggest economic booms shortly after WWII but I hardly consider the war as that much of a contributing factor. It's just a case where industrialization and modernization of certain technologies saw a rapid improvement (possibly due to develoment of military technology, granted) and a population explosion but who's to say that, minus the New Deal, we would have been in the same place? A simular boom followed the first Gulf War but I don't see anyone faulting nor praising the economic policies of President Bush. The public seemed more apt to praise Clinton for that.
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
camacazio camacazio is offline
Mocker
camacazio's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
camacazio is probably a spambot
Old Dec 29th, 2003, 07:55 PM       
Whether it's the war or the new deal, FDR fixed the crappy shithole the country was in.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Drew Katsikas Drew Katsikas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Drew Katsikas is probably a spambot
Old Dec 29th, 2003, 11:12 PM       
I think most historians believe it was the war. The race to build arms and manufacturing military units put many of the unemployed into a job, and many of the rest were drafted. However, there is no mistaking the importance of the New Deal programs.

OAO, do you really believe that leaving the depression alone would have been a better idea than FDR's political experiementation? Do you realize that had any other country fallen victim to such a depression, that they would have quickly became a dictator state? Examples: Italy and Germany. Extremley impoverished nations that gave power to a dictator. They gave up freedom for food. Too an extent, that's what the US did, but FDR, while clearly exceeding presedential limits, was not so much a dictator. If anything, FDR was a slightly conservative political leader for his time. He did not make Mussolini-esque programs, like giving incentives to have children, and selling asking citizens to sell their wedding rings to the state. Instead he created jobs that did superfluous construction , and other things that the people wanted. This is why Hoover failed to have any popular support. They didn't want to wait out the problem for years in poverty. They wanted something to be done. Even though FDR's plans had many errors, the amount of progress made surely canceled any of that. He led the country out of war and depression, into one of our most prosperous and revered ages. Too bring up shady numbers and "facts" from the fucking Cato institue against FDR is absurd. THe only thing I agree with that the article stated was the folly in the Dems support neo-New Deal programs. I don't believe the country needs such programs at this time, but during the depression and the war, these programs were essential, and very succesful, and to try feebly to pick them apart to fuel your juvenile libertarian agenda, is... well, juvenile.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Dec 30th, 2003, 10:26 AM       
FDR, or Faglin Depravo Jewsevelt as I like to call him, was a known child rapist who began each morning by tearing the head off a live kitten and sucking it's spinal fluid. Far from being crippled, he only used the wheelchair or sympathy and in the privacy of the west wing refused to move on his own out of laziness. Child slaves were strapped to each leg and commanded to do his waking for him so he could 'use more juice' for 'raping the country'. He kept the saintly head of Herbert Hoover on a pike on the east lawn as a warning to all those who might believe in America and were it not for Richard Nixons time travelling exploits would have lived to drop the Atom Bomb on Texas as a precursor to handing the Whitehouse to his lover, Adolf Hitler.


His little dog Fala ate only fresh human meat and Eleanor introduced Lesbianism to the continental united states, and is theorized to have been a space alien.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Dec 30th, 2003, 04:03 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrewKatsikas
I think most historians believe it was the war.
Exactly. But then, historians are not exactly qualified to talk about what pulls nations out of economic depressions, are they? BTW, there is more to economics than the rate of unemployment.

Quote:
OAO, do you really believe that leaving the depression alone would have been a better idea than FDR's political experiementation? Do you realize that had any other country fallen victim to such a depression, that they would have quickly became a dictator state? Examples: Italy and Germany. Extremley impoverished nations that gave power to a dictator. They gave up freedom for food. Too an extent, that's what the US did, but FDR, while clearly exceeding presedential limits, was not so much a dictator. If anything, FDR was a slightly conservative political leader for his time. He did not make Mussolini-esque programs, like giving incentives to have children, and selling asking citizens to sell their wedding rings to the state. Instead he created jobs that did superfluous construction , and other things that the people wanted. This is why Hoover failed to have any popular support. They didn't want to wait out the problem for years in poverty. They wanted something to be done. Even though FDR's plans had many errors, the amount of progress made surely canceled any of that. He led the country out of war and depression, into one of our most prosperous and revered ages. Too bring up shady numbers and "facts" from the fucking Cato institue against FDR is absurd. THe only thing I agree with that the article stated was the folly in the Dems support neo-New Deal programs. I don't believe the country needs such programs at this time, but during the depression and the war, these programs were essential, and very succesful, and to try feebly to pick them apart to fuel your juvenile libertarian agenda, is... well, juvenile.
FDR failed, and failed horribly. I'll give you a little tidbit of information: the 1930's was not the first decade that a depression had set in America, and we were just fine earlier. It's obvious you won't listen to theory, so you should look at the past. In the end, the New Deal only aggravated the New Deal.

These programs were not "essential", and they certainly were not "very successful"... they kept people unemployed for the benefit of white, northern Americans. It is no suprise that the unemployment rate was so high.

Herbert Hoover was no laissez-faire capitalist, he was pre-New Dealer. That distorted image of HH has always disturbed me.

The depressions in Germany and Italy were far more grave than in America. Those countries were victims of horrible hyperinflation.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Drew Katsikas Drew Katsikas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Drew Katsikas is probably a spambot
Old Dec 30th, 2003, 11:16 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...

FDR failed, and failed horribly. I'll give you a little tidbit of information: the 1930's was not the first decade that a depression had set in America, and we were just fine earlier. It's obvious you won't listen to theory, so you should look at the past. In the end, the New Deal only aggravated the New Deal.
What the fuck are you trying to tell me? The last sentence makes no sense. And no, I'm positive people would have fucking started some sort of crazy riot had there not been serious tangible attempts to aid the situation. Letting the depression run its course was not the way. And your tidbit of information is bullshit. Never before had there been such a dperession, hence its name, the great depression. It was an abysmal time, much worse than previous buisness slumps.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Dec 31st, 2003, 08:33 PM       
I meant the New Deal aggrevated the Depression.

What do you think made the Depression so bad in the first place? The stock market crash was bad, granted, but it alone would not have lead to the horrors of the 30's.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
MatthewCleveland MatthewCleveland is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
MatthewCleveland is probably a spambot
Old Jan 1st, 2004, 01:13 PM       
It was the failure of the Federal Reserve Board to act. They didn't help out the banks so there was massive failures. The stock market crash caused all of it too much money was based on margin.
__________________
To be wise is to udnerstand you know nothing.
Wisdom is the tolerance of others.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:20 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.