page 2 still thinks that William Henry Harrison was the best

11/7/2006 2:19:08 PM

Quote :

"what's your reasoning for that??"

The new deal policies wrecked the economy, contrary to popular belief. World War II solved the Great Depression, while New Deal policies at best prolonged it, and at worst, exacerbated it.

He also single handedly introduced safety-net programs that cause much of the listlessness in America today.

The fact that he is popular doesn't change the fact that he's one of, if not the worst, president as far as economics goes ever.

11/7/2006 2:20:02 PM

^he's not gonna listen

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: i am not saying FDR is one of the worst presidents but many would say his new deal EXTENDED the great depression, and did not ease the effects"

Quote :

"jwb9984: uhhhhhhh, if many people are saying that, many people are pretty damn incorrect "

11/7/2006 2:22:45 PM

He doesn't have to believe me. It's simple economics and most of the retards around here know nothing about economics. They just know that their grandparents (democrats and republicans) think FDR was a great president.

They're been told a lot of things that were incorrect, much like how people think Pilgrim's came to the U.S. for religious freedom, which is a baldfaced lie.


__
Oh and BTW, he was a fantastic wartime leader, I'll give him that. That alone saves him from being the absolutely worst president, but his idea of economics was absolutely incorrect, and his idea of what the constitution means makes the Founding Fathers cry

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

11/7/2006 2:25:23 PM

everyone is assuming alot of shit in this thread.

you have no way of knowing if the new deal prolonged the depression or if it helped at all.

WW2 did pull us out of it but claiming this other shit is hot air.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 2:27 PM. Reason : oh and I dont know shit about economics which is why I stay away from it.]

11/7/2006 2:26:27 PM

Quote :

"oh and I dont know shit about economics which is why I stay away from it"

That's fine, but you may want to stop making economic assertions if you intend to stay away from it.

11/7/2006 2:31:09 PM

i didnt im just saying everyone in this thread is assuming that either the new deal destroyed the US or made it into this awesome place.

11/7/2006 2:33:33 PM

not me

11/7/2006 2:37:34 PM

i guess whether or not america is "listless" is all in the eye of the beholder. i mean, i've spend time in countries more socialized than here, and they were much more lively on the average and had plenty of economic prosperity and competition (and had fewer homeless people on the streets).

not trying to say anything about fdr here, just saying that the presence of social programs does not make a country dull, uncompetitive, or lazy.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 2:39 PM. Reason : .]

11/7/2006 2:37:47 PM

Quote :

"not trying to say anything about fdr here, just saying that the presence of social programs does not make a country dull, uncompetitive, or lazy. "

Very true. Social programs existing doesn't do so, but sometimes the incentives behind them do. But the higher you set the safety net, the more economic prosperity you're going to give up (in facor of dullness, uncompetitiveness, and laziness).

Ask a lot of Europe why unemployment is so high. And rather than fighting it by lowering the safety net (or closing loopholes that allow it to be misused) they cut the legal workweek back to open more jobs up.

11/7/2006 2:44:15 PM

I wish people would stop confusing France with the rest of Europe.

11/7/2006 2:46:19 PM

germany's unemployement isnt exactly low

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 2:48 PM. Reason : !!!!!]

11/7/2006 2:47:12 PM

Well, you're right in one regard. France catches most of the hell because it has the highest safety nets and thus a higher degree of the labor problems.

Europe is pretty protectionist of its industry in general, which some of you people may think is a good thing, but economists think
But they have to be, because they "gotta keep them jobs, productivity be damned"

This shit isn't even new to Europe. See Petition of the Candlemakers

11/7/2006 2:51:39 PM

well Europe has never been about churning out alot of shit which worked in the past but not so much now with the increase in service jobs.

11/7/2006 3:09:31 PM

dental, I really don't understand what you're trying to say with that one. Where are you going with that?

11/7/2006 3:14:24 PM

Considering that Germany is the world's #1 exporter according to the WTO, I'd say they do a decent job of churning stuff out. They aren't China...noone is, but i'd rather people live a quality life than be tied to a factory all the time. Part of the problem is that East Germany is still devoid of many small or medium-sized businesses, but labor regulations contribute as well.

It's easy to lump all of Europe's economies together, what with the growth of the EU's role in international relations on the continent. Northern Europe has low unemployment and a good number of service, industrial, high-tech jobs, as well as limited agriculture. A great example of how to run an economy and still protect resources and people is Ireland, which is largely service based, but has increasingly been populated by high-tech companies, especially on the west coast.It was rated #1 overall in quality of life last year by The Economist.

I also like to point out Taiwan as a good example of how to develop an economy greatly and still provide social benefits to the citizenry, such as national healthcare.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .]

11/7/2006 3:16:43 PM

You won't see me claiming that manufacturing capability = economy. You can have a completely serviced based economy that creates oodles of wealth and prosperity. It actually works well, because then polluting industry goes to places that can put up with the pollution while they feed themselves and won't worry about it until they reach a level of prosperity that affords them leisure for environmental concern.

11/7/2006 3:18:46 PM

^China's actually reaching that point now. Their environmental standards are becoming stricter than ours in some cases now (such as fuel economy and emissions).

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

11/7/2006 3:26:24 PM

Quote :

"dental, I really don't understand what you're trying to say with that one. Where are you going with that?"

im not sure, im typing a paper on the scientific paradigm shift of the 1600's and listening to death metal so my brain is pretty much mush.

11/7/2006 3:30:35 PM

Quote :

"China's actually reaching that point now."

That's great. See, people tend to forget that in this country as little as 150 years ago we had very little standards for the environment, work conditions, etc. We finally got wealthy enough where we could sacrifice some wealth for safety and a healthy environment.

Some people would like to force it on other countries ahead of time, which is disasterous and unfair. Imagine if someone came into the the U.S. in 1850 and told us we had to meet their extremely high standards for worker safety and environment. It would have bankrupted us and stifled any chance for growth. Some want to do the same to world economies that are at the stage where we were in 1850 or so, which just isn't right.

On another note, is China actually increasing industrial standards of environmental protection as well, or just the consumer side like automobiles? I hadn't heard that until now.

11/7/2006 4:57:55 PM

This was a government standard. They've also pressed for clear water and air acts. I got this info from a report on NPR i heard maybe last Dec. or so.

11/7/2006 5:00:40 PM

Fantastic, the economics of prosperity at work.

11/7/2006 5:07:11 PM

but...isnt this the government regulation you people hate so much? or are you saying that they've reached the economic status where they can worry about this?

11/7/2006 5:16:52 PM

Well, I don't know about the specific rules of Chinese regulation, but here is my stance on it.

When people get upset enough about a specific act that they are willing to pay more for those goods (or import them instead) they will clamor for regulation. It is more economically efficient if it comes in pollution trading or other market-based regulations, but in any regard, I'm assuming that people are clamoring for change, meaning they have reached a level where they are willing to sacrifice for stricter regulations.

I'm not anti-regulation when it comes to externalities. I just think sometimes regulations have such unintended consequences that they would be better off not existing in the first place. But that depends on the specific regulation.

11/7/2006 5:30:36 PM

Quote :

"you have no way of knowing if the new deal prolonged the depression or if it helped at all."

Emlpoyment through public works is an agreed upon method to improve a country's economy.

11/7/2006 5:52:10 PM

Quote :

"A 1995 survey of economic historians and economists asked "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." Of the economists 27% agreed and 51% disagreed. Of the economic historians, only 6% agreed and 74% disagreed. (the rest were in the partly agree/disagree group)."

11/7/2006 5:56:45 PM