A feel-good political video? Uh... something's wrong!

Christ, when he gets all choked up, I almost lost it.

I did lose it. How can you not feel emotional at that?

Crazy old coot. He doesn't know what he's saying. Sad.





[Edit] I was obviously being sarcastic. Don't be so sensitive.

You survived the first Depression? The one FDR prolonged with government programs?

Well sir, if this Fraudbama is elected, get ready for the next one.

Democrats thank you for your lifetime of support, especially Robert "KKK" Byrd.

Charles is cool.

^What's with this bigotry. That's what's sad here. Not the video.

>> ^quantumushroom:
You survived the first Depression? The one FDR prolonged with government programs?


OK cuz you DEFINITELY know more about the great depression that he does. STFU.

That's what they taught me in history class, too.

>> ^quantumushroom:
You survived the first Depression? The one FDR prolonged with government programs?

>> ^deedub81:
Crazy old coot. He doesn't know what he's saying. Sad.
[Edit] I was obviously being sarcastic. Don't be so sensitive.


I think you misunderstand the meaning of "obvious."

those who fail to remember history get an exciting opportunity to repeat it.

you've had 63 years to learn a lesson from the first depression, you dumb mother f*cker. how long is it gonna take.

>> ^deedub81:
That's what they taught me in history class, too.

who paid the teacher in your history class? whens the last time you did any fact checking on what you learned in high school?

^White<
OK cuz you DEFINITELY know more about the great depression that he does. STFU.

just because you live during a time doesn't mean you know sh*t about it. you live in the age of computers. do you know how to build a computer? you also lived during a housing bubble...did you realize it was happening or understand why?

Ever heard of books...this isn't pre-history. It is possible to learn things without actually experiencing them yourself. Do you think someone with a phd in early 20th century economic history knows less than Charles just because Charles actually lived during that period?

Maybe you should RAFB (read a f*cking book)

God imstellar you're such an Ayn Rand wank (sorry Objectivist) it's hilarious.

^what about my three comments above have anything to do with objectivism?

1. those who do not study history repeat it
2. check the sources of information you are presented, especially biased sources
3. second hand knowledge is possible for human beings

aren't these three things common sense/common knowledge???

I would like to title this comment: FDR and the Great Depression VS Barack Obama and the Current Recession

^1. those who do not study history repeat it

Charles is WRONG about the Great Depression and it sounds like he's proposing that we repeat it.

FDR enacted a few good programs to provide immediate relief. That's all good and well except for the fact that those programs also served to lengthen the depression by a number of years.

"..The government from Hoover to Roosevelt made it worse by intervening too much and too arbitrarily."
ABC Finds FDR Partly to Blame for 10-Year Great Depression

Is that what we want to happen again thanks to the Democrats in congress along with Obama?


"Some economists in retrospect have argued that the National Labor Relations Act and Agricultural Adjustment Administration were ineffective policies because they relied on price fixing."

"Unemployment fell dramatically in Roosevelt's first term, from 25% when he took office to 14.3% in 1937. Afterward, however, it increased to 19.0% in 1938 ('a depression within a depression'), 17.2% in 1939 because of various added taxation (Undistributed profits tax in Mar. 1936, and the Social Security Payroll Tax 1937, plus the effects of the Wagner Act; the Fair Labor Standards Act and a blizzard of other federal regulations), and stayed high until it almost vanished during World War II when the previously unemployed were conscripted, taking them out of the potential labor supply number."

"The U.S. economy grew rapidly during Roosevelt's term.[54] However, coming out of the depression, this growth was accompanied by continuing high levels of unemployment; as the median joblessness rate during the New Deal was 17.2%. Throughout his entire term, including the war years, average unemployment was 13%."

Wikipedia.com

See also:

UCLA Economist say FDR Lengthened the Great Depression by several years

FDR Lengthened The Great Depression

A brief history of the Great Depression

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years

ABC Finds FDR Partly to Blame for 10-Year Great Depression

Yes, FDR Made Depression Worse and Longer

Don't Trust the Depression Brain Trust

...and I could go on.

Me, too. I went to a high school where the teachers were very liberal, and even they said that FDR didn't really help.

>> ^deedub81:
That's what they taught me in history class, too.
>> ^quantumushroom:
You survived the first Depression? The one FDR prolonged with government programs?

my mistake deedub81, i misinterpreted your comment for sarcasm. i thought you were insinuating that FDR did not worsen/lengthen the depression. clearly i believe he made things worse as i am a member of the very economic school in some of the sources you cite (mises.org).

personally, i was taught in high school that the great depression was resolved in part by the new deal, which is not true.

Really?

You know I got taught in university that one cannot simply focus on FDR's presidential policies and blame them for extending the depression considering the problem was based on a multitude of factors at time of limited understanding of economic policies as a whole which lead to Keynesian theory of economics.

And yes imstellar you are a Ayn Rand wank. Because you actually think economic theory of markets is simple and straight, you do realize all theories of economics are simply theories, all of them rely on model behavior, all of them are constantly revalued due to incompatibility with the real world. We debated this over and over in your economic propositions on the blog.

But hey American high school must be much better than that!

imstellar you are becoming the QM/BillO of austrian economics. or maybe the Palin of austrian economics... or maybe... the Tom Cruise of austrian economics.

i learned in school that WW1 started because of the assasination of Franz Ferdinand, so yeah I don't trust school much. I just know everything is too complicated to teach in school or to write down in some perfect theory.

For the record, I never mentioned high school. You're not the only one who attended university, Farhad2000.

I don't remember ever writing that FDR was the cause or the only reason why the effects of the depression were felt for decades. I don't presume to know everything about economics.

Contrary to what you wrote,one can say that certain policies created by FDR extended the Great Depression. One can "blame him" with good reason.

Don't take my word for it, though.

Just to mention one example of an expert opinion: Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian published the findings of their 4 year study in the August 2004 issue of the Journal of Political Economy citing FDR's policies as one reason that the great depression dragged on. I believe they even put an exact figure on just how long he lengthened it by.

But let's not focus only on FDR. Considering how complex the US economy is, let's spread the blame out a little. There's plenty to go around to.... say Herbert Hoover, as well.

I understand that there are many different schools of economics, but we (the non-experts) must take the recent findings of the experts and base our actions and our votes on their reports. Otherwise, we are just taking shots in the dark. The economy doesn't perform well under the "guess-and-check" method.


That being said, I'm curious: Which economic school told Barack Obama that his economic policies, in regards to small businesses, would be good for our economy (one that is driven by small business)? Any single one of those policies, when applied to my business, hurts. Therefore, it is bad for my employees because it hinders my profits, which stifles growth, which limits the number and dollar amount of raises, which causes poor employee moral, which........



Lee E. Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research
Harold L. Cole, Ph.D., professor of Economics UCLA, National Bureau of Economic Research


>> ^Farhad2000:
Really?
You know I got taught in university that one cannot simply focus on FDR's presidential policies and blame them for extending the depression considering the problem was based on a multitude of factors at time of limited understanding of economic policies as a whole which lead to Keynesian theory of economics.
And yes imstellar you are a Ayn Rand wank. Because you actually think economic theory of markets is simple and straight, you do realize all theories of economics are simply theories, all of them rely on model behavior, all of them are constantly revalued due to incompatibility with the real world. We debated this over and over in your economic propositions on the blog.
But hey American high school must be much better than that!

>> ^Farhad2000:
But hey American high school must be much better than that!


If you read my comment, I'm saying American high schools impart a poor education. I also think that many colleges impart a poor education. Case in point, you were at university studying economics and yet you came out failing to understand the most common economic myth (the fallacy of the broken window). You can't claim to be an economic expert because you spent a few years in university, nor can you claim to be an expert on the great depression. Did you take a class that focused specifically on the great depression? That is, the entire textbook? Probably not, yet there are many books 400-600 pages long that focus solely on the great depression. You dont need to pay $2500 a semester to understand the great depression, all you need is a library card. Many books have conflicting theories (as in any scientific field)--even if you took a class (which you probably didn't), how can you be sure you were exposed to the correct theory?

The average college student enrolls in 5-6 classes a semester. So in a year, they read on average 12 (text) books, or 48 books to obtain a bachelors degree. Spending an hour or two a day (compare this to how many hours people watch television) it is not hard to read 1 book a week. That is 52 books a year. Over a 4 year period that would be 208 books - 4x more than you read during a 4 year period at university. If you think college is a good way to obtain information, you would be mistaken. College is an environment to make sure lazy people read books at a leisurely pace, while providing easy access to parties, alcohol, and a piece of paper which certifies that you successfully read 48 books.

Besides, an education in keynesian economics is about as valuable as an education in intelligent design: neither models can make predictions with any accuracy.

As I said, through my studies of the great depression one fact became overwhelming clear there is hardly one concrete factor in its emergence nor in it's continuation.

Yes it's always postulated that FDR's policies prolonged it which is silly considering the effects of the TVA and eventually war economy used to prop up Britain and eventually joining WW2. This is military Keynesian or war economy.

My personal belief is that but you must look at the political landscape at the time in context, Smoot-Hawley Act signed in 1930s especially with regards to trade, my belief is that this act had a lot to do with the severity of the depression.

However this is pissing contest, any further studies brings forth more and more layers of the problem, eventually we come to a realization that there was endemic structural weaknesses in the economy as a whole due to incomplete economic understanding. Which lead to Keynesian economic theory in the first place in 1936, revised constantly through neo-classical economics, criticized into New Keynesian Economics.

The Austrian school of economics is an obscure field for a very good reason, because it cannot sustain its theories through empirical evidence, everyone from Sachs to Krugman to Milton Friedman have found fault with it. This is not a critique of your personal study of your field through reading but reading books captures a specific point of view, there is little inter relational work between the different theories of economics.

As I said we went over and over this in your blog posts, where you couldn't even grasp a possibility of informational asymmetry as a free market eliminator between consumers within an economy.

Now for Deedub81.

Sorry but that's called economic re balancing, first of all Obama isn't the perfect president for economic recovery at all as he has to maintain (rather appease) corporate and middle class America at the same time. Which is very hard to do, he is not raising taxation in the over 250,000 bracket, as he needs to maintain a middle class, he needs to push up taxation for those earning over that.

A continuous cut tax from 2000 is simply unsustainable with the federal debt, and the continuous spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. There needs to be a fundamental re balance to allow the US economy to get back on a more stable less profit driven path to recovery.

Am going to stop here because you think that the US economy is driven by small business, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, FOX news is not the best source for economic discourse.

^I would encourage anyone coming across the above post to disregard it, there is little if any factual accuracy in it. I can refute it point by point, but what I say will appear biased. Please research it for yourself.

A good starting point would be "America's Great Depression" by Murray Rothbard. Here is a a link to the full book in pdf form:

http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

I will say one thing however, as this is unequivocally wrong:

"Which lead to Keynesian economic theory in the first place in 1936, revised constantly through neo-classical economics, criticized into New Keynesian Economics."

Keynesians were the dominant economic school of thought during the great depression, and was challenged by the Austrians as early as 1920. To claim that Keynesian theory was a reaction to the "inherent economic problems" of the depression is not only wrong it is fraudulent as they were the very policies which turned a 12-18 month recession into a 15 year long depression. The Austrians were recognized as the only economic school to foresee the coming crash before 1929 with the awarding of the nobel prize to F.A. Hayek in 1974. This is not a "obscure, fringe" school of economic thought.

Hm. You think I have no idea what I'm talking about?

Guess again.

But, like I said before, "don't take my word for it."

“Small business plays a big role in our economy,” said Dr. Chad Moutray, Chief Economist for the Office of Advocacy. “This study confirms just how important small business is to our economic growth and prosperity. It makes clear that economic policy needs to take into account the needs of small businesses, because those businesses drive our economy.”


I never have, and never will watch Fox News. I have a mind of my own because I read. Forgive me for taking some crackpot economics expert's opinion over Barack Obama's.


>> ^Farhad2000:
[clip]
Am going to stop here because you think that the US economy is driven by small business, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, FOX news is not the best source for economic discourse.

Ouch. I think my college education just got pwned.

I like most of your comments, imstellar, but I take issue with being called a lazy person. College usually entails more than just reading textbooks. Among other things it is the exchange of knowledge and opinions between a professor, who is supposed to posses a certain degree of expertise in the field, and a student. Also, students often attain practical experience and learn from each other. I have read WAY more than 48 books in college, not to mention scholarly journals, essays, articles, etc. In fact, I am required to read 30 books for only one 3-credit class next semester. In my field of study I have benefitted a great deal from the input of my peers in a classroom setting, and I have had the advantage of professors who could help me understand and interpret matierial like my archaic grammar textbook.

Couldn't you insult Farhad's extensive economic knowledge without cramping my style?


>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^Farhad2000:
The average college student enrolls in 5-6 classes a semester. So in a year, they read on average 12 (text) books, or 48 books to obtain a bachelors degree. Spending an hour or two a day (compare this to how many hours people watch television) it is not hard to read 1 book a week. That is 52 books a year. Over a 4 year period that would be 208 books - 4x more than you read during a 4 year period at university. If you think college is a good way to obtain information, you would be mistaken. College is an environment to make sure lazy people read books at a leisurely pace, while providing easy access to parties, alcohol, and a piece of paper which certifies that you successfully read 48 books.

Can't we all agree that FDR did not bring the U.S.A. out of the Depression?