More Utahns ought to know about Marriner Eccles, born in Logan Utah, attended
Brigham Young College, LDS mission to Scotland, millionaire by age 22 and
Chairman of the Fed under FDR. Eccles became involved with the creation of the
Emergency Banking Act of 1933 and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Today, the building that houses the Federal Reserve bears his name. Marriner Eccles is often seen as an early proponent of demand stimulus
projects to fend off the ravages of the Great Depression. He wrote: As mass
production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn,
implies a distribution of wealth ... to provide men with buying power. ...
Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by
1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced
wealth. ... The other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When
their credit ran out, the game stopped.".
The tea-party are neo-confederates, thay hate america it's government and most
of it's people.AUSTIN, Texas 2009 -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up
an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday with his stance against the federal
government and for states' rights as some in his U.S. flag-waving audience
RE: ljeppsonYou forgot to mention:1. After all temporary
jobs ended unem[plymewnt went back up after 1936 to over 20%temporary government project jobs didn't work.2. FDR continued
and put into over drive all his predeccesor programs.FDR didn't fix
a thing.3. THe depression did ot end until AFTER he war.the war did not solve anything. IF want the real solutions
look to what president cooleridege did circa 1920 to end a severe recession
created by woodrow.. He got government out of the way of the people!
News flash...the tea party is less popular in the US than atheists and Muslims.
Good job of reading the tea leaves!
@ljeppson: Earl is using the language with precision. "Cronies" is
exactly the right word.Earl has pointed out another difference, by
the way, between tax cuts -- which benefits the general population -- and
stimulus spending -- which enriches friends of the administration in a targeted
manner (in case you are still wondering why Reagan succeeded and Obama
failed.)Labor union bosses don't use money very efficiently to
expand the economy.
Sorry, Lew. I know how much you revere FDR. But I don't. His presidency was one
of the worst things to happen in the 20th century. I have no respect for him, or
almost any other president. The one thing they all have in common is that they
lie. The one exception might be Jimmy Carter. He's about the only one I have a
scintilla of respect for.
Earl is right, Additionally, if WWII spending ended the recession,
why didn't the DOW show it? In 1945, it was the same level it was in 1939.It is easier to decrease unemployment when 416,800 people die in a war,
not a very practical solution for decreasing unemployment now. It
has been said that the passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff was a significant
match that sparked the Great Depression. True enough, but by 1944 the tide was
happily turning when it came to trade. The very legislation that put us on the
path to economic decline was reversed in a very substantial way in 1944. New Deal legislation limited the hours people could work, in contrast,
the government got out of the way during the war and allowed people to work,
production increased significantly. Compare this to the economic
downturn in 1921, which initially was worse than the Great Depression, but it
turned out to be relatively short and weak precisely because the federal
government did nothing.
RE: Earl "That took no genius at all for FDR and his cronies."
Cronies? I was carefully reading your remarks when I hit this. A little
glendenbgYou are leaving out data as well. Hoover did not cut
spending, he spent a ton. In 1929, Federal spending increased $166
million or 5 percent. In 1930, it rose by $193 million over the preceding
year, at 6 percent. The pattern continued in 1931, with an increase of
$257 million, nearly 8 percent. And for 1932, it rose a whopping 30
percent, by $1.08 billion. All told, federal spending increased 57 percent
in this four-year period, according to the Office of Budget and Management Web
site. During that time, GDP declined by 25%; unemployment rose to
25%, as you mentioned. If you want to advocate Keynesian economics, why didn't
all this extra spending do anything?Talk about using highly
selective in its use of data, your data ends at 1936, why? Because FDR raised
taxes to pay for the deficit spending and the economy went in a free fall.
Looking at all the data, (not just 1933-36) it is clear that the New Deal DID
NOT work. And the war spending didn't get us out of the depression
either, but that's another story.
It's not that hard to grow GDP when you're down at the bottom to start. That
took no genius at all for FDR and his cronies. They just started another bubble
that eventually burst, as predictable. You guys need to stop giving him so much
credit for that.As for the WWII argument, that's what this is all
about. That's the ultimate example for Keynesians of the deficit-spending
success story. But those of you who cling to it are living in the past. First,
those GDP figures during wartime were skewed by wage and price controls. They
were extremely unreliable for comparing to non-command economies. It's an
oranges and apples comparison. Second, Robert Higgs, a noted political
economist, has demonstrated to an almost irrefutable degree that the "WWII
recovery" didn't begin to take effect until a year or more after war end.
It finally took hold because FDR's policies were abandoned by Truman and the
hostility toward business came to an end. Keynesians warned Truman that leaving
those polices would throw us back into a depression. The opposite happened. The
same thing will happen now if Obama stops listening to Bernanke, Geithner,
This nation under FDR saw its highest and steepest GDP growth in history --
BEFORE WW2. It has not been matched before nor since.
Walter Williams is like calling on an arsonist to help put out a fire, don't
even compare how much debt we oue.Here are the 10 developed
countries with the most gross debt, compared to GDP, based on the OECD's
projections for 2011:1. Japan - 213 percent of GDP2. Greece -
157 percent3. Italy - 129 percent4. Iceland - 121 percent5.
Ireland - 120 percent6. Portugal - 111 percent7. United States - 101
percent8. Belgium - 101 percent9. France - 97 percent10.
United Kingdom - 89 percentWorries about the growing U.S. debt,
combined with concerns about the uncertain strategy for dealing with that debt,
played into Standard & Poor's recent decision to cut the rating on the
nations long-term debt securities one notch to AA+ from the highest AAA rating.
Better get your fact's straight.This is 2011, not
1945.Your still living in the illusion of WWII and The Great
Depression. That's all water under the bridge.So other then being a
Obama basher, what's your real point, did "Human Events" toss you out
again?.That's my truthful views.
The publication Williams cites is highly selective in its use of data.From 1929 to 1932, GDP declined by 25%; unemployment rose to 25%. There was
no unemployment insurance. Factories, businesses and banks were closing all
over the nation. Homes and farms were being foreclosed upon. The economy had
collapsed. The Hoover administration did exactly what Williams and other
anti-New Dealers claim would have worked - and things only got worse year after
year.In 1933, FDR was inaugurated in March and launched the New
Deal. By 1936, unemployment was down by 25%, GDP had grown 36%. Believing the
crisis was over, FDR pushed for a balanced budget - cutting back New Deal
programs and the economy went into recession. So they started the programs back
up again - voila, GDP grew 8% a year.For those who say it was WWII
that pulled us out. What do you think that was? WWII was the New Deal on
steroids. Government spending rose to 46% of GDP; factories were put to work
building things for the government. At its peak, 10% of the population was in
the military. It was Keynesiansim on a vast scale. And it worked.
ljeppson is correct about both of his last comments, but he needs to consider
this: Obama and FDR inherited economies that were falling (not quite in
freefall) and made them worse! It was Keynesianism that exacerbated and
lengthened the longest depression in American history.It's true that
the "Reagan miracle" was merely another form of stimulus. And it
resulted in an eventual recession, as every stimulus does.Stimulus
and correction are inseparable. Stop the stimulus and you stop the corrections.
It's that easy. Recessions come and go, but we're way beyond that. We're into a
correction that the government Keynesians refuse to allow. They're living in the
illusion that you can stimulate your way out of a correction. All you can do is
delay it and make it worse, which is exactly what's happening now.
Re: Tea Party - "Stimulus spending didn't work for Roosevelt, it didn't
work for Bush, and it didn't work the multiple times Obama has tried it. "
Consider something else. Stimulus tax cuts did work for Reagan. Reagan ran up
huge deficits via tax cuts. This was stimulus a la Keynes (the Keynesian model
includes running deficits via tax cuts as well as spending increases). The
Reagan recovery was a Keynesian one!
Another parallel Williams might want to consider is that both Obama and FDR
inherited economies in free fall. And don't forget it.
one voteMoney doesn't change the facts. Any chance you
can make an argument on the merits of Williams argument?Can you make
a case for why Obama's policies are NOT like Roosevelt's? Or can you explain why
"this time is different?"
It is apparent from articles such as this and on local media outlets that the
million dollar media anti-obama 2012 elections has begun. The conservative media
is funded by the billionaires seeking to keep lower taxes. These will become
three time dailies as dictated by the editors of conservative newspapers.
The problem with history is that the number of versions are only limited by the
number of people in existence at the time. Today's politicians and their
minions rewrite history to prove their point and fool the public. The facts I believe:Boom times and recessions are promoted and fed
as a part of the economic strategy of people and groups in their quest to own
and control the wealth of the world. Consumer spending is the main
force that moves the economy. When spending goes up, the economy goes up. When
spending goes down, the economy goes down.Freedom varies inversely
between business and worker/consumers. If one side gains more freedom it is at
the expense of freedoms for the other. Business has overgrown it's
value to our society.
Wow I was sweating there mountainman. Looked like you had me for a second...
until I decided to compare investemnts of Bush VS Obama.Ok Iraq pays
back 400 million of 1 trillion in 11 years..... mmmmmGM paid back 8
BILLION with a B in less than 2 years - during a recession....Clear
winner is Obama in investement choices. I'm betting Libya turns out fine too.
Isn't it comforting to only see the problems caused by the other side?If we are honest with ourselves, and drop the partisan spin, we would see that
both parties are steering this country off of a cliff.Perfect
example is just above, where one can only see where the Dems have created crisis
for gains.Remember how the Homeland security level would be elevated
before any election?Remember how we used the term "Mushroom
cloud" to garner support for the war in Iraq?Until we hold both
parties accountable, things will not change.But, I guess you cant
hold your own party accountable until you can see their faults.Does
not happen with most partisans.C'mon Independents. Rise up and take
Obama's administration became famous for its motto, "Never let a crisis go
to waste." As Dr. Williams points out, it seems now to have shifted its
emphasis from venal political profiteering during naturally occurring crises, to
artificially producing and prolonging them.This is to be expected,
and is wholly consistent with standard evolutionary socialist tactics and dogma.
Liberals crave crises to frighten the ignorant into, not just acquiescing to an
otherwise unpalatable and unattainable agenda, but into a lemming-like defense
of it.Previous posters demonstrate an apparent short-term wisdom in
this regime's contrivance, but it's hard to see why any American -- even
famously gullible liberal elites and academics -- would embrace such a tired,
failed, thoroughly discredited socialist economic stratagem.Particularly, when history definitively demonstrates that those policies are
certain to create another 16-year depression that can only be shaken off by
Mountanman,You forgot to include that Iraq has cost us a TRILLION or
so and Libya is under a billion.Apples to Apples?I am
not supportive of either war, but $400 million is nothing compared to what we
spent there (and what did we get for it?).
John Maynard Keynes had been proven wrong over and over again. Stimulus
spending didn't work for Roosevelt, it didn't work for Bush, and it didn't work
the multiple times Obama has tried it. So what is Obama's latest proposal?
Spend more money. That is doubling down on stupid.
@ Screwdriver. According to a newspaper article recently, Iraq has repaid the US
$400 million. How about Libya? Thanks for asking!
@ Roland: so the minority is always wrong, is that what you're saying? It's the
economic policies of Keynes and Samuelson that have shaped the majority of
economists today, and look where it's got us. Williams is correct about the
comparison between the two presidents. Both of them have turned the economy over
to advisers who adopted Keynesian fallacies. There is no such thing
as the multiplier effect, and there is no such thing as priming the economy with
deficit spending. That sort of thinking is where economic bubbles and high
unemployment come from. Yes, Keynesianism is the source of higher unemployment
and inflation. How much longer do we have to see our economy destroyed by this
sophistry before Keynesians finally admit they were wrong? I'm afraid it won't
even be after they destroy it completely.
Weird how conservatives sell government spending on a war as good for the
economy but spending on teachers, fire fighters and road construction is
desructive.That says a lot about your personalities.BTW
how it getting the oil to pay for the Iraq war comming along?
Roland:"opinions ... shared by only a very small ... share of
economists."It was FDR's very own treasury secretary. That's a
pretty significant opinion. But this article was filled far more
with facts than opinions. increasing federal spending to $10
billion while revenues were only $3 billion. Between 1933 and 1936,
government spending rose by more than 83 percent. Federal debt increased
73 percent. legislation that raised the top income tax rate to 79
percent and then later to 90 percent. Roosevelt proposed a 99.5 percent
marginal tax rate on incomes more than $100,000. factory employment and
payrolls had increased by 23 percent and 35 percent. oThen came the
NRA, . industrial production dropped 25 percent." National Labor
Relations Act, . gave them new powers, . pushed productivity down sharply and
unemployment up dramatically. In 1938, Roosevelt's New Deal produced
the nation's first depression within a depression. o The stock
market crashed again, losing nearly 50 percent between August 1937 and March
1938, and o unemployment climbed back to 20 percent. Most economists agree the New Deal was a failure, and say it wasn't until
WWII, that we got out of the depression.
Printing and spending trillions more will work this time, if we just give it a
chance. And don't forget.... we've got hope and change on our side in addition
to faster printing presses.
It is not the President that controls the economy. The economy controls what is
going on. The bad economy cannot be blamed on Bush or Obama. It is ironic that
people that hate the federal government want a President to control the economy.
However, reactionary anti-business attempts by the tea party to destroy credit
or drastically reduce revenue will effect economic cycles.
Another excellent article by Dr. Williams! Should be required reading in every
economics and US history course in America! History is indeed repeating itself!
Some who think denial is a river in Eygpt will refute this truth but as the
great Winston Churchill once said, "Truth is incontrovertable. Malace will
always attack it, ignorance will always deride it, but in the end, there it
When FDR took office the unemployment rate was 25% (!). By 1936, the end of his
first term, the unemployment rate was 17%, still high but a whole lot lower that
25%. I remember my late father comparing Hoover (yes I know you tea partyers
see no difference) and Roosevelt. Hoover said over and over again "there's
nothing that can be done." Roosevelt said "there's something to be
done and we're going to do it." Doesn't Williams understand that we could
have ended up with our own version of Hitler absent FDR?
It should be noted that the opinions expressed in this piece are shared by only
a very small, but very vocal, share of economists.The highest
economic growth rate ever recorded during a single presidential term during
peacetime was F.D.R.'s first term. Spin that any way you want.