Talk:New Deal/Archive 2

Communism

OK why is a reference to co vcxhgsbgnhhnhdfdH:OIlxjfdklfjoril.dkjfalfkj;sjfkdfd;lja;lkd;akdffdk gn'ngfj'ldkbgryesfhud;og/jthdflghdkghf;dgiotyghfdglfgfhnvjhkdfvjfkhgkfgfdgdfmmunism in this article. It just seems like a typical biased section. I just dont see the need for it.

yo;v,hhjyhvghjgv,jhm hv,jhv,hv,hv ,jvhhvhh v,jhfljvjh hvvjhhjvhvhh hxkclhfcSVJODfviOo ghghh;ohisdugfb:Oghds:>VSZfiorjjjjjjjjjjjzklnhdvcx k.gskb ghhjhhhhhjhjhjcihaf;fshvliadfkhugfhfk;jqghe;du / uyiuyidfuawyilduzshuhfu

uidyofhfgeyrlfauejfdlhulshdsfjfh

hdusifqyoridulfyfoujt

ibjgfhupotrirtpoy87uiuyiuyuu

What are you talking about? Communistic and Socialistic ideas were a part of the New Deal. The CCC and other such works programs were often looked at as influenced by communism. The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) was a socialist group that influenced much of the economy during the 30s and the New Deal. I admit, this section does not give much insight to the real communist activities of the New Deal era, but it was still there. I'm sorry for your conservative republican-messfurliufhgufnzhookjjkkdjfkdjffklz;kjdfi;rjfo;sjkdl;rijf, but, whether you like it or not, comunism was very evident in the US during the 1930s especially. 00:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes, future changes

This article is good, but some improvements are necessary. I already reorganized and reworked the section on the first hundred days, making it more clear why it is a self-standing section. Also, there is a "historical assessment" of the second term, but not the first; I hope to get around to writing one for the first term. Also, perhaps even more important than the historical assessment is the contemporary response, particular the response of his contemporary political opponents think, which is missing. JBur,,,,,,,,nham 04:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

wow, this article is a beast! god, i miss 172. Bonus Onus 04:37, Mar 22. mklbgvf;kg'jklj;hldgjkdgbm,v.hkjtyh[dflkkjjjjjlk;, 2005 (UTC)

Biased article (to put it mildly)

This article is grossly biased and in many parts simply counter-factual.

The whole section of "The New Deal and economic relief" is pure fantasy. The article runs:

"It was not until the U.S. entered World War II, however, did Roosevelt try Keynes' idea on a scale necessary to pull the nation out of the Great Depression; Roosevelt, of course, had little choice now. Even granted the special circumstances of war mobilization, it seemed to work exactly as Keynes predicted, winning over even many Republicans. When the Great Depression was brought to an end by the Second World War, business had been reinforced by government expenditures"

Indeed! Aggragate consumer demand stalled, monitary expansion galore, ten-fold increase in saving, taxes held in check -- No doubt about it -- it's the fabled Keynes formula! In reverse perhaps (as Keynes wanted fiscal expension, no saving, more aggragate consumer demand, higher taxes) but nonetheless!

Apart from that (and the incoherent structure of the whole article, which looks like a jumbled up coalition of inserts) the summary:

"Although the New Deal did not end the depression, all in all it helped to prevent the economy from decaying further by increasing the regulatory functions of the federal government in ways that helped stabilize previous trouble areas of the economy"

Is opinion, not facts. Even if one agrees (and most sensible ones don't) that regulatory action did play a part in "preventing" further decay, it's a very dubious contention in view of the feeble nature of regulartions at this point. (Ori)

A Counter Argument (not very long; i'm kind of busy right now)

The key thing achieved by the New Deal, what it gave to the American people, and later the world (despite a policy of isolationism, America was still integral in the world's economies) is confidence.

Confidence was what caused the Depression in the first place; the fatal weaknesses in America's economic system (a vast gulf between grossly inflated share prices and faling business performance) were seen by key economists who pulled their money out of Wall Street, triggering a domino effect. The "Booming" 20's were booming because people had the confidence to go out and spend money, even when they didn't always have the money to do so, because they were certain of more money coming in. The Wall Street Crash destroyed all that confidence. Roosevelt's action with the banks, the fireside chats, the alphabet agencies, they all gave the American people confidence. When WW2 started, the great recovery was coming along. The New Deal gave the American economy a boost; this declined when Congress began blocking the President's every move, but there is a reason for some President's initials being immortalised (FDR), and others not (who ever heard of JEH? howabout J.Edgar Hoover?)

Response

While I agree that incredibly high consumer confidence was at least partially responsible for the "roaring twenties", the analysis needs to be taken a step further. 

What caused this consumer confidence? The Federal Reserve's easy money policy. This threw out money like there was no tomorrow. The U.S. money supply increased by 60% from 1921-1929! This created a boom (which is always, always, always followed by a bust. Unsustainable economic growth is never good in the end). This bubble of inflationary induced-optimism burst in 1929 (possibly because of the stock market, though that is highly contested). All of a sudden people found that they had made terrible investments and pulled their money out of the bank. This lack of bank holdings reduced investment in the economy. Reduced investment crippled the economy. All of this was due to a false confidence in an economy largely driven by inflation (which is almost universally acknowledged as the antithesis to all that is good in an economy). Thus, simply stating that the New Deal will boost confidence is incomplete. Keep in mind that the New Deal had to be paid for by the 1932 Revenue Act, which effectively doubled taxes on americans, in the middle of the Great Depression. Also keep in mind that other branches of the new deal, such as the AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act), literally went around buying crops from farmers and burning them in order to keep prices high to please the farm lobbyists. This, while many americans could barely afford enough to eat. And in regards to Roosevelt himself, let me give you a few quotes from him of what he "supported" during his campaign for presidency the first time:“immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures” as well as that of, "abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating bureaus and eliminating extravagances reductions in bureaucracy." The man also was quoted as telling legislators "I hope you will not allow any concerns about constitutionality, however reasonable, to hinder your passing of the proposed legislation". He simply had no regard for the U.S. Constitution. Congressmen finally objected to his policies because they finally remembered the Constitution. Confidence and the war were not what brought us back out of the Depression. The money supply and inflation rate stablilizing was what did it. It just happened to occur during FDR's tenure. This is not just one person speaking. This is the consensus of economic thought from around the world. Wolfenstein284 02:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Serious NPOV problems!

Several sections of this article, especially the one on Legacies of the New Deal, are clearly biased in favor of the New Deal and presenting opinion as fact. In addition we're treated to such stuff as "Thus, perhaps the strongest legacy of the New Deal, in other words, was to make the federal government a protector of interest groups and a supervisor of competition among them. As a result of the New Deal, U.S. political and economic life became much more competitive than before..." which doesn't really make sense. --Bkalafut 06:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opposition to the New Deal

I notice the opposotion to the new deal is basically absent throughout the article in general. This article should, at least, note the large group of Democrats, led by 12 strong anti-New Deal advocates, who greatly opposed it during Roosevelt's second and third term. Another thing that the article may want to mention is Roosevelt's attempt to unseat these anti-New Deal Democrats in the 1938 and 1940 election - in which Roosevelt failed miserably. I, myself, am so bias against the New Deal that I do not trust myself to write such an addition. YourNickname 16:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is Critics of the New Deal.--Fangz 17:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

earlier in the article it acknowledges that unemployment and poverty prevailed throughout the new deal, but later is hystericaly claiming that it was beneficial. despite added government controls that prolonged the depression, it claims that it was still a good idea in a very opinionated and subjective way. i would refer readers to Ayn Rand's non fiction work "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal" for further analysis of how detrimental the new deal was to the economic U.S.

NPOV Issues

I haven't read past the introduction, but it is clearly in violation of an reasonable understnding of what NPOV means:

"Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" is widely regarded as being a socialism-oriented set of policies that is responsible for the economic difficulties the United States faces today. In addition to transforming the government into a octopus-like entity, affecting every aspect of American economic life, Roosevelt initiated programs that punish the wealthy and successful for being wealthy and successful, make people prone to relying on the government for their every need, and tend to stagnate potential economic growth."

Kind of crys out for a little editing, huh?

The recent edits were simple vandalism that should have been removed on sight. Thanks for pointing them out. 172 | Talk 00:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Geez, after 70 years one would think some balance would be tolerable. nobs 01:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This article largely follows the standard account offered in U.S. history departments in universities. It is not largely based on the older dominant accounts of liberal admirers of the New Deal such as Schlesinger. It builds on some of the more critical works that followed Hofstadter. It probably fits even most closely into the work of political scientists like Skocpol, who have taken an institutional turn, thereby skirting the debate in economics between Keynesians and monetarists. So, this article has not been, and does not have to be, a battle ground between today's liberals who seek to affirm the legacies of the New Deal and libertarians. 172 | Talk 01:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

FDIC vs SEC

Author of this article doesn't know the difference between the FDIC & the SEC, or converserly the difference between the stock market & the banking industry. It's all money & rich folks I guess, so lets not let facts get in the way of progress. nobs 01:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I would've recognized that error if I had more closely proofread this article in the past couple of months. I went ahead and corrected that problem. 172 | Talk 01:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Smoot-Hawley

Well, somewhere in the New Deal should be included the widespread view held by modern scholarship that the Smoot-Hawley Trade Protection act, and others like it around the world, is what led to a world-wide collapse of international trade and thus a worldwide depression. The Depression did not "begin" on Black Tuesday; the seeds and root of it were sown much, much deeper, and the Stock Market Crash was simply a reflection of economic trends of the times. Hence today, policy makers will justify eliminating trade barriers at all costs—even if it means allowing cheaper foreign labor to manufacture goods that has a short term effect of creating unemployment in the domestic market. The path of protectionism has been tried, and everyone knows its disasterous result.

The other aspect that could be expanded in this article is, to paraphrase Milton Friedman, the Federal Reserve Board failed to perform precisely the function it was created to perform, at precisely the moment it needed to perform that function, i.e. pump up the money supply, or act as lender of last resort when the run on the banks ensued. nobs 02:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The place to include information on the literature on Smoot-Hawley by the monetarists and the Austrian economists (who are not the only recent perspectives on the subject) is the Smoot-Hawley article. This is a wiki, meaning that it readers of this article are interested in further details on the causes of the Great Depression, they can click on the depression-related links here and find the information in other articles. 172 | Talk 02:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, specifically what I am refering to are phrases like "crisis in capitialism" in this article. Then we can demonstrate that New Deal "reforms" like AAA set asides were dictated by the (capitalistic) axiom of supply and demand, i.e. reduce areable farm land to reduce farm output, to increase demand for farm goods to increase farm income, etc. There are many such examples. nobs 02:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

First, I saw that you removed the phrase "crisis in capitalism" where it appeared in the article. I did not object, and it's gone. So that's not an issue now. Second, the article makes it clear that the AAA was a price-fixing scheme that sought to increase farm incomes; and that is not a contested statement at all. It is important, however, to point out where it failed to increase farm incomes. On that note, I was the one who wrote the content on the plight of black tenant farmers in the South who were pushed off their land because of the AAA. 172 | Talk 03:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This has been a interesting exchange, I'm a bit short of time right now and would like to proof read the rest later. One thing I've noticed regarding many historical accounts of the New Deal: the New Deal, just like many other such programs (Great Society, Reaganomics, Contract With America, etc.) began with high hopes among its adherents. However, after a number of years, many people openly despised these government programs, and felt no shame in letting others know it. As time went on, the New Deal became less, and less popular. President Truman's "Fair Deal" was a virtual admission that the New Deal had not been fair, as was openly spoken at that time. Time and again, this lack of fair criticism is absent from historic accounts of the New Deal (but certainly is apparent in Great Society, Reaganomics, Contract With America, accounts). nobs 03:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

There has been attention paid to some of your observations on the declining popularity of the New Deal in university U.S. history departments. The work of economists criticizing the New Deal is better known, however, because their work has more readily apparent implications for economic policy today than the work of historians. 172 | Talk 03:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

POV and inaccuracies

I corrected inaccurate statements about Britain and added more detail about the economy. The way to handle POV issues is to make clear who argued what, especially liberals and conservatives. The ency is not an supposed to take sides, but is supposed to give readers solid arguments on all sides, clearly identifying the issues. I also added bibliography and online sources. RJensen Rjensen 22:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

How about a criticism section?

This article seems a little biased in favor of socialism. The article could use a Criticism section. RJII 01:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Get your facts straight. Just because both the New Deal and socialism are forms of government interventionism in business does not equate the New Deal with socialism. Apples and oranges are two forms of fruit, but they aren't the same. Same thing with politics: fascism and conservatism are two forms of rightist ideology, and American liberalism and communism are two forms of leftist ideology. --Armaetin 02:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Goals

Although I have not read the entire page, I was not quite able to find the goals of the New Deal. Perhaps I am missing the obvious, but if the artical could be rewritten as to state the goals early on, it would reduce confusion. --Akako|☎ 21:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is consistent with the presenation in other references and survey texts on U.S. history. The reason you cannot find a clear statement of the goals of the New Deal in the article is that there were no such goals. The New Deal was not a bill or piece of legislation but a slogan used by FDR and his associates to refer to the administration's evolving, often-contradictory policy agenda for around a decade. 172 07:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.--Akako|☎ 17:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Getting Serious about the New Deal

We have to treat this as an encyclopedia not a polemical debate forum. I added a full scholarly bibliography that will be of use to readers and which covers most all the alternative POV interpretations of the New Deal. (I dropped Hayek because his book does not deal directly with the New Deal.) I added an introduction that included the standard textbook model of the 3-R's (relief, recovery and reform). #172 deleted it because they think it's POV. Nonsense. If 172 thinks so he should debate it right here before damaging other people's work. (And yes I am a professional historian who has published extensively on the 1930s.) 3-R is the framework used by many history (including supporters and opponents, on left and right) to classify the many complicated programs. POV means taking sides and this model does not do that. It helps to sort the MANY alphabetical agencies that otherwise overwhelm the student.

The previous versions were badly flawed and full of misinformation. For example the old first sentence says the ND is Roosevelt's legislative agenda. That's false--historians all concentrate on the agencies (and say very little about Congress, which was mostly a rubber stamp. The first banking bill was passed by the House as a rolled up newspaper because they did not have a copy! There's a lot of gross error in the early version--for example it says `At the time, some of the New Deal policies were recognised by supporters as being at least somewhat unconstitutional...` --which is false-- and supports this falsehood by a speech made in 1931, 2 years before FDR took office. Likewise the earlier version is full of polemnical POV such as "dismal record in aiding marginal farmers and African Americans, among others—contrasted with its often frequent generosity toward certain business interests" -- that's pretty controversial stuff! The article never mentions the HUGE effort made by RA and FSA to help marginal farmers. It keeps secret who the "certain business interests" were. That's polemics that is unsuited to an encyclopedia. If there is a debate, just tell the reader there are 3 different evaluations: A, B and C.

How this for another howler: " Except in the field of labor relations, corporate power remained nearly as free from government regulation or control in 1945 as it had been in 1933. " The author never heard of wage and price control, the OPA, the military priority system, the special war taxes and and all the wartime controls over business? That howler suggests we need much more careful editing here. Rjensen 10:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work-- I just read through all of your changes. I am very sorry about my revert earlier. I think I was confusing you with another editor with a different set of changes in mind at the time. I do need to be more careful... At any rate, working on Wikipedia for more than three years has left me very burnt out. Too often Wikipedia's economic history articles turn into online discussion board quarrels between users posting Randroid tracts on the one hand and users posting Marxist agitprop on the other. I hope you get a chance to rewrite many more articles and start to turn Wikipedia into a serious resource on economic history. 172 07:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, now I really feel like schmuck! I know who you are. Just now I finally made the connection to the user account name. What an honor it is to have you contributing here! Still apologizing profusely, 172 08:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is dreadful POV

This article needs to give fair hearing to monetarist objections to the new deal at the time, and later negative review with hindsight. The opposition to the new deal is not a minor opinion that can be noted - is in entirely mainstream and has been since the 30's.

This is really really bad. I am inclined to put a NPOV tag on this article until some change is made. I do not have the energy for the fight, but if someone else agrees I will support them vigorously.

jucifer 17:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• The Critics of the New Deal is totally inadequate for so many reasons. It is merely a list of the critics, with no proper explanation of their views. At the absolute minimum there must be a first-order section on "Criticism" in this article (with a link under the header to {Main Article: Critics of the New Deal}, which needs expanding) detailing the primary complaints of the critics. The most controversial economic issue in the history of the US needs to have both sides aired.

jucifer 17:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Monetarist objections to the New Deal deserves its own article. Likewise an article on the money supply at the time, or tax policies. This is an argument among economic historians. I have tried to include discussion of some of these points where they belong (eg Lewis Douglas). But the main goal of the encyclopedia article on the New Deal is to tell what happened, not what did not happen. For example to list and briefly explain all the farm programs is itself a major chore and it has just begun. Likewise relief program. Likewise fiscal and monetary policies. Now I do agree the Critics of New Deal entry needs fleshing out. That is difficult work: you really have to be an expert to untangle the many, many arguments that were used at the time -- it's a job Joseph Dorfman did brilliantly in his 5 volume history of economic ideas, but it stops in 1933 and no one has done the leg work. Rjensen 19:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

There was no Monetarism during the New Deal years. There were Neoclassical economists, but no Monetarism. The Classical and Neoclassical theory (and, by the way, Marxism, which is founded on Ricardo) had an inadequate understanding both of the source of the money supply and of its significance. Herringgull2 11:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

he opposed socialism?

" Roosevelt strongly opposed socialism" <- what's the source for this? Ostensibly he strongly favored socialism. RJII 04:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh no. There was a Socialist party in those days (headed by Eugene Debs to 1920s then Norman Thomas) and FDR fought it all his life, and they fought him bitterly. When the opportunity came for a socialist breakthrough their biggest obstacle, by far, was FDR himself. , Thus there were serious proposals in 1930s to nationalize the banks, the electric power grid, medicine and the railroads and he insisted: Never! There were some socialist elements to the TVA, true, but not in the other major programs. FDR wanted a very strong business-based economy. He also wanted to empower workers and farmers in terms of politics. But he never endorsed plans to give workers seats on the board of corporations (and that never happened.) FDR rejected the idea that the government should control the means of production, the #1 plank of socialism. As for planning, he did appoint some committees but he never took up their recommendations. In 1920 as VP candidate FDR opposed the proposal to nationalize the railroads. He never took over any business whatever (apart that is from the TVA issue). You can see it in small things: for example the WPA was normally not allowed to own the trucks or bulldozers it used (they were rented or donated by city government). The WPA had a sewing project but they were not allowed to sell any products; instead the sewn items were donated to hospitals and orphanages. Rjensen 04:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Are political appointments part of New Deal?

Gazpachio says 'African Americans - political appointments cannot in any sense be considered a component of the new deal'. That's an odd perspective. Every book on the New Deal includes them....what's the problem? Rjensen 11:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)