"New Deal or Raw Deal?"

[Kingsman]

Subtitled “How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America” by Burton Folsom, Jr., is an antidote to the progressive historians’, notably Arthur Schlesinger and William Leuchtenburg, lavish praise of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Contending that FDR’s policies prolonged the depression of the 1930s, Folsom, a professor of history at Hillsdale College, argues that the country would likely have done better had FDR followed his campaign promises in 1932 to cut spending and pursue a balanced budget without raising taxes.

Concerning taxes, an interesting reversal: In 1929 the feds collected $1.096 billion from the income tax and $540 million from excise taxes. By 1935 the figures were $527 million from the income tax and $1.364 billion from excise taxes. The shift worked to the disadvantage of lower-income earners.

Roosevelt’s pettiness, lying, and duplicity seem familiar to observers of the Obama presidency. Several sections seem to be written with Pres. Obama in mind until you recall that the book was published in 2008.

[bob_rx2000]

There have been a number of alternative economic views to the New Deal coming out over the past few years. It is clear that some of what FDR did made sense (off the gold standard for currency flexibility) and other items were not so great. On the whole, the question becomes "did the New Deal reforms delay economic recovery, and did they in turn drive post-war prosperity?"

[Kingsman]

Bob RX: "New deal reforms" driving "post-war prosperity." Interesting. Do you have a source on that?

[bob_rx2000]

The question, Kingsman, is how much of the post-war economic boom in this country, which lasted by various ways of counting through either 1972, 1979 or perhaps 2001, was the result of the average person having the incentive to work and seeing that they were reaping a share of the results, versus the class warfare type of economics we see now, and were New Deal reforms (Wagner Act, Social Security, SEC, Glass-Steagal, etc.) responsible for what portion of that? The opposing forces are that for at least the period of 1946 to 1972 there was essentially no economic competition with the United States.

I've been reading bits and pieces in articles for the past several years on that, and if you're really interested, I'd suggest digging back through the NYT Review of Books to find reviews of some of these texts. Off the top of my head, alas, no titles are jumping out.

[Kingsman]

Bob RX: You write, "the result of the average person having the incentive to work." Aren't we talking about Harry Truman's America, not Barack Obama's America? Who doubts that American workers were eager to work during the post-war decade--especially after the 15-20% unemployment rates of the Thirties? And with milllions of veterans being discharged and needing employment. I'd argue that workers were plenty "incentivized."

[bob_rx2000]

Bingo, Kingsman, the America of Harry Truman is a lot different that that of Barak Obama. If I understand it correctly, most people were anxious to work, having just come through the Great Depression and then the uncertainty of the end of World War II.

[bdcbbq]

Bingo, Kingsman, the America of Harry Truman is a lot different that that of Barak Obama. If I understand it correctly, most people were anxious to work, having just come through the Great Depression and then the uncertainty of the end of World War II.

Back then know one was raised with the idea of government reliance. Self support was the norm. Now, we multiple generations raised who firmly believe on government reliance. Now its become genetically ingrained.