The effect of the New Deal was to lengthen the great depression. Why do you think it was the great depression, and not the depression that no one has ever heard about? You can't understand the business cycle without a satisfactory business cycle theory. While Krugman would argue that it's a failure of aggregate demand, a lack of consumer spending, when they are capital goods industries hit hardest?

Businesses, entrepreneurs generally make profits. There is a tendency in the market economy for losses to be minimized. So why then do we see, with recessions, these clusters of errors in forecasting? Since recessions affect every aspect of the economy the answer must be in something that touches all aspects of the economy. Money. The cluster of errors results because entrepreneurs are fooled into thinking that consumer time preference has changed. Interest rates are determined on the market by the amount of money consumers set aside to save. When you have the central bank lowering interest rates this fools entrepreneurs into thinking that general consumer time preference has lengthened. Hence the overinvestment (malinvestment) in capital goods industries. Ultimately consumer time preferences HAVE NOT lengthened and so this malinvestment must be liquidated. Hence the bust phase.

This is when FDR stepped in. With brilliant programs like mandatory/voluntary price controls, paying farmers to kill pigs, etc. FDR tried to save the economy. Instead of making things better, this made things worse, and the depression dragged on and on and on.

As for best president... Coolidge seemed pretty good I guess.

Also the notion that WWII ended the depression is rather foolish. How on earth could the destruction of hundreds of thousands of able bodied young men and countless resources be good for the economy? If you drive two million cars into the ocean, would that be good too? WWII was good for GDP figures though, which just goes to show you what a worthless measure of economic health the GDP figure is. So what should we replace it with? Well we don't really need to replace it with anything. After all, you only need statistics if you want to plan the economy, and if the 20th century has taught us anything, it's that government planning doesn't work. That's why I told the census bitch to **** off.

We've reached back into Politard/Econotard territory...

Omaha the notion that WWII ended the Great Depression is a widely accepted idea and is taught in almost any American history class pertaining to the time period. The phrase "World War II ended the Great Depression, not the New Deal" is hammered into students.

I know. I was taught that in history class as well - they even showed me a little GDP graph as if that conclusively proved the argument. I was a little hesitant at the time, because it seemed wrong to me, but I the teacher said it so hey, they had to be right! It wasn't until years later that I learned the truth. Military keynesianism is a very dangerous myth.

Or if you want to understand reality, and stuff. But sure, railing against mainstream economics is fun, too.

Look, the whole "the New Deal fixed the Depression" or "World War II fixed the Depression" are oversimplifications. Everyone with more than a cursory reading of history knows this. But for high school students, that's a decent summary, like saying "slavery was the cause of the Civil War." Well, it was more complicated, but that's the basic truth. Likewise, the re-energizing of the American industrial system yanked it out of the Depression. Did it need to be spent on tanks and bombs? No. Was this the most productive use of the money? Definitely not. As you said, WWII did tremendous damage to infrastructure, but not in the United States. The US was in the very fortunate position of being virtually untouched by the war's destruction, while still reaping the benefit of increased production. It's the sad reality of human nature that military adventures and warfare are among the very few things that people can agree on the need to pour massive money into.

I recommend that people start with Eric Rauchway's The Great Depression & The New Deal: A Very Short Introduction if they're serious about an overview of the period. But I don't want this turning into a "Keynesian theory is a myth!" *debate.* Take that crap to Politard land where it belongs, and where the acolytes will care.

Just to clarify :

Keynesian explanations as to the great depression belong in this forum. Austrian explanations do not.

That is your position, yes?

FDR did create new government if that is something to be proud of. He prolonged the GD, he created waseful spennding that did nothing, we dug holes with the idea to fill them back in, we dug tunnels to nowhere, we created welfare and lucky for us we now have multi generatation of families that can't take care of themselves

i would argue FDR is the worst president we have ever had before the best. i do think there were worse ones check WW and you will have better option. I do think he is a solid pick for the bottom 20 percent.

I feel FDR must be a top 3 president if unemployment went from 22% and higher down to 2 % during his terms. Regardless of the circumstances I think its safe to say for instance Herbert Hoover could have never done that. It could also be argued w/o FDR at the helm in 1933 the USA could have gone into a bad direction

Convince me that there was a better person then FDR to be president during his tenure without using right wing rhetoric. More important convince me that FDR's wartime decisions and the ability to choose excellent military personal earns him a spot in the bottom 20 %?

the fact that he appointed or approved good generals and stayed out of the way is huge, fair and that alone can keep him out of the bottom 20. i didn't give him enough credit for that.

The fiscal / economic / spending issues - were bad even if a few of them were productive, the bulk was nothing but a waste and drag. to this day they continue to hinder our country. He did more to prolong the GD then shorten it. Much like the current socialist we have in the white house now!

Sorry couldn't resist giving you a little right wing!

John T. Flynn wrote a great biography on FDR. It's an absolute must read for anyone interested in this fascinating historical figure. It's available online for free :

http://library.mises.org/books/John%...te%20House.pdf

My position is that this whole thread belongs in politics at this point, because it is being far too colored by policy discussions than particular evaluations of history. I've never been a fan of "greatest Presidents" lists for this reason.

I think this discussion of unemployment really misses the point. Unemployment figures are always misleading. For one thing they don't accurately count the number of people who are out of work. But more importantly - how were these people employed? In the construction of munitions and being employed by the army. Well wait a second. This isn't good for the economy at all. You're not building consumer goods, or capital goods. You're building war goods, all of which will either be destroyed, or sold to other people who will destroy them. So sure, everyone is employed, just like the government could employ tons of people by paying them all to do nothing or to dig in ditches and fill them up again. But is that really a great measure of how the economy is doing? Shouldn't we measure how much wealth is being created, the general standard of living for consumers, investments in capital, how much money people can save, better working conditions - things which have a tangible effect on peoples lives? And this assumes of course that we should measure employment etc. at all. Why? The only reason to collect these statistics if you want to plan the economy. But if the 20th century has taught us anything (from this thread it looks like it hasn't) it's that government planning doesn't work. It's simply impossible for the state, for some political appointee, for somebody's nephew, to replace the role of an entrepreneur in deciding what goes where and how. The price system in the market economy is incredible - it directs, effortlessly, simply through the buying and selling of market participants, where every bit of every resource should go. The state can never replicate this and efforts to do so have been disastrous.

Maybe it didn't end the depression, but it is fair to say that WWII ended unemployment (at least in the US).

One of the reasons why unemployment was so high during the depression was the efforts to prop up wages. Prices generally fall during a recession (unless you're suffering from stagflation) and attempts to maintain wages (which are the price of labour, ldo) above their market levels will generate unemployment.

Many of "the greatest" lists often do degenerate into quibbling and can train wreck a thread - especially ones in which politics is an inescapable parameter for judgment. But yes, given that this forum is supposed to be an objective view of history (as much as humanly possible) we have veered too much into the swamp of subjective political rhetoric.

We should consider the FDR infighting to be at an end and move on. Thanks.

At present the thread will remain open with the option of being closed at the discretion of the Dictator: Mr. Mod.

If he hadn't had that affair and ran for President I wonder if we would have had an internal war. Probably my favorite founding father though

Dear god this is a terrible thread. I'd be completely unwilling to bump it if this wasn't the history forum and it wouldn't take 3 months to fall off the first page no matter what.

I side with every single person who thinks that this topic is too recent and too political to be judged well. Different people will have totally different views based on their present politics.

EDIT: I mean seriously guys... When Omaha and Lirva are posting in history threads you done ****ed up.

I know this will not be popular, but now my pragmatic nature comes forward: Kennedy. He managed to avoid us from getting into a nuclear war 1962. Maybe it was easy, not hard, but anyway. I'm sure some dork could have screwed it up. And we would not be sitting here right now.

Both JFK and Nikita Khrushchev prevented a nuclear war back in 1962 IMO... for a more in depth analysis check out "Oliver Stones Untold History of the United States"
co written by Peter Kuznick ... It goes into specific details of the cold war that you may not have been aware of

Here is the episode 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ciIE8HKKU

Thanks, will look at it (Edit: didn't open in my country). But you need two to tango...

Calvin Coolidge was pretty impressive. The economy was in similar times as they are today and he cut taxes and spending in half, and believe it or not, the economy bounced back. Unfortunately, Hoover went back to Wilson's ways and sent us into the depression.

JFK had a lot of potential. One of the few Democrats I liked.

Kennedy caused the Cuba Missile crisis. History is continuous. Ask yourself why Cuba wanted these missiles in the first place. JFK ranks as one of the worst presidents for me. He escalated the invasion of Vietnam. Just think how many lives would have been saved if he had not done that.

Three Best Presidents in Order:
1) Washington
2) Jackson
3) Jefferson

Worst Three in Order:
1) Lincoln
2) Wilson
3) Obama

There's something about Kennedy that I think most people are missing, and that is Kennedy said we have to go to the moon. The impact of this action has been gigantic, and it's still felt today.

Furthermore, if you think this was a good decision, then Kennedy has to move towards the top of the list. And likewise, if you think this was a bad decision, he has to move towards the bottom.

Best wishes,
Mason