Great Article

[Freakaloin]

lol...cato...

[Fender]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 8&v=glance

Editorial Reviews
From the Inside Flap
“Admirers of FDR credit his New Deal with restoring the American economy after the disastrous contraction of 1929—33. Truth to tell–as Powell demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt–the New Deal hampered recovery from the contraction, prolonged and added to unemployment, and set the stage for ever more intrusive and costly government. Powell’s analysis is thoroughly documented, relying on an impressive variety of popular and academic literature both contemporary and historical.”
–Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate, Hoover Institution

“There is a critical and often forgotten difference between disaster and tragedy. Disasters happen to us all, no matter what we do. Tragedies are brought upon ourselves by hubris. The Depression of the 1930s would have been a brief disaster if it hadn’t been for the national tragedy of the New Deal. Jim Powell has proven this.”
–P.J. O’Rourke, author of Parliament of Whores and Eat the Rich

“The material laid out in this book desperately needs to be available to a much wider audience than the ranks of professional economists and economic historians, if policy confusion similar to the New Deal is to be avoided in the future.”
–James M. Buchanan, Nobel Laureate, George Mason University

“I found Jim Powell’s book fascinating. I think he has written an important story, one that definitely needs telling.”
–Thomas Fleming, author of The New Dealers’ War

“Jim Powell is one tough-minded historian, willing to let the chips fall where they may. That’s a rare quality these days, hence more valuable than ever. He lets the history do the talking.”
–David Landes, Professor of History Emeritus, Harvard University

“Jim Powell draws together voluminous economic research on the effects of all of Roosevelt’s major policies. Along the way, Powell gives fascinating thumbnail sketches of the major players. The result is a devastating indictment, compellingly told. Those who think that government intervention helped get the U.S. economy out of the depression should read this book.”
–David R. Henderson, editor of The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics and author of The Joy of Freedom


The Great Depression and the New Deal. For generations, the collective American consciousness has believed that the former ruined the country and the latter saved it. Endless praise has been heaped upon President Franklin Delano Roosevelt for masterfully reining in the Depression’s destructive effects and propping up the
country on his New Deal platform. In fact, FDR has achieved mythical status in American history and is considered to be, along with Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, one of the greatest presidents of all time. But would the Great Depression have been so catastrophic had the New Deal never been implemented?

In FDR’s Folly, historian Jim Powell argues that it was in fact the New Deal itself, with its shortsighted programs, that deepened the Great Depression, swelled the federal government, and prevented the country from turning around quickly. You’ll discover in alarming detail how FDR’s federal programs hurt America more than helped it, with effects we still feel today, including:

• How Social Security actually increased unemployment
• How higher taxes undermined good businesses
• How new labor laws threw people out of work
• And much more

This groundbreaking book pulls back the shroud of awe and the cloak of time enveloping FDR to prove convincingly how flawed his economic policies actually were, despite his good intentions and the astounding intellect of his circle of advisers. In today’s turbulent domestic and global environment, eerily similar to that of the 1930s, it’s more important than ever before to uncover and understand the truth of our history, lest we be doomed to repeat it.

[Freakaloin]

fender...u can find twice as much stuff arguing the opposite...thats right nitwit...ur opinion is in the minority...for a reason...

[Fender]

lol...cato...

At least explain yourself.

[Fender]

fender...u can find twice as much stuff arguing the opposite...thats right nitwit...ur opinion is in the minority...for a reason...

Because people are ignorant sheep.

[Freakaloin]

sounds like u r...ur spouting off neocon beliefs like they r ur own...

[Fender]

:lol:
I'm not even republican, let alone neo-con. And cato and mises are independent and have no political affiliation what-so-ever. Those two organizations are two of the current administration's biggest critics.

[Freakaloin]

wow...then ur really dumb...sry...

[Fender]

:lol:
Your ignorance astounds me.

[Freakaloin]

so u think social programs r bad things as well?

[R00k]

:lol:
I'm not even republican, let alone neo-con. And cato and mises are independent and have no political affiliation what-so-ever. Those two organizations are two of the current administration's biggest critics.

Cato has actually talked with the administration quite a bit about their social security privatization plan.

When I first started reading Cato I really liked what they had to say - a lot of it seemed purely constitutional and common sense.
But after reading them for a while and getting their daily emails I've found they go way overboard on some things (SS is an example, IMO), and they really do have some extremely conservative views. I've personally lost a lot of respect for the organization in the last year or so.

[R00k]

Great British

English. :lol:

fucking fat yank :lol:

brown toothed island monkey :lol:

[Fender]

so u think social programs r bad things as well?

For the most part, yes. They often do more harm than good. They rarely benefit who they were designed to benefit and the administrative and other social costs often outweigh those benefits.

At the very least they should be state based programs instead of federal.

[Fender]

And for the record I don't think we should let poor people starve or deny people health care or schooling. I just think the gov't does a horrible job of performing these functions. Private charaties do a much better job.

[R00k]

FDR was a socialist and his New Deal programs are probably the worst thing (economically) any president has done to this country. We can trace the downward spiral of personal responsibility and accountability back to his programs when the gov't started handing out money.

We definitely differ here, although I did feel the same way at one time.
I'm of the opinion that systems like that can and will be abused, but if they serve such an important and beneficial role in the country's society, they're worth continuing and doing what can be done to minimize the abuse.

I have relatives who are perfectly responsible adults and have always contributed to the community, but who don't have wonderful retirement plans to live on when they get too old to work, and cutting their social security checks would hurt them tremendously. And I'm sure a majority of Americans have relatives in the same position.

This may support your argument that we have come to depend on Social Security in a fashion, but it doesn't directly follow that that is necessarily a bad thing. If Social Security weren't there, these people would still not be able to work, and instead of living a little below the average quality of life, they would be living in abject poverty - whether Social Security was ever around in the first place or not.

[Fender]

At least we can have an intelligent conversation, R00k, even if we disagree. Thank you.

[R00k]

For the most part, yes. They often do more harm than good. They rarely benefit who they were designed to benefit and the administrative and other social costs often outweigh those benefits.

At the very least they should be state based programs instead of federal.

I would be all for state-based programs. That seems like what they should have been to begin with, so I guess we do agree a bit on the subject. It's a shame that it will never be that way now -- once tax dollars work their way up to the federal level, getting them returned to the hands of state governments is next to impossible.

[Fender]

Yeah, the President and Congress were never meant to be the seats of power in this country. The true power should in the state's Governors and Legislative bodies. FDR is responsible for most of the transfer of power from the state to federal level, or at least the beginning of the downward spiral.

[R00k]

At least we can have an intelligent conversation, R00k, even if we disagree. Thank you.

As long as we're not talking about Peak Oil. :icon32:

Seriously though, I know you've put a lot of thought into these issues yourself, so I always respect any opinion you have, even if it's different from mine. :icon14:

[R00k]

I mean, even if my opinion is better!


(j/k, obviously)

[Freakaloin]

so u think social programs r bad things as well?

For the most part, yes. They often do more harm than good. They rarely benefit who they were designed to benefit and the administrative and other social costs often outweigh those benefits.

At the very least they should be state based programs instead of federal.

moron alert...bush thanks u...

[R00k]

Yeah, the President and Congress were never meant to be the seats of power in this country. The true power should in the state's Governors and Legislative bodies. FDR is responsible for most of the transfer of power from the state to federal level, or at least the beginning of the downward spiral.

I can't deny that -- that he was partially responsible for the shift in perception about the federal government's responsibilities. And that really is a shame. If he had made it a state program, that could have possibly made a huge difference. Although I'm sure it was bound to happen eventually anyway.

[Ryoki]

I'm going to have to read those links you posted when i get home, Fender.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Fender,

What is it about government that makes it incapable of delivering services effectively?

A short read on the case for universal medicine for your consideration.

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_ ... states.htm

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Rook,

Good read. Lets hope the Democrats can find a good candidate for the next election eh?