rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (03/01/85)
It has been very fashionable lately for the right-of-center crowd to praise Roosevelt as a great president (something we left-of-centers' have known all along!). But there is no evidence they would act any differently than Hoover did. (Too little government intervention, too late). I throw these statistics of 1933 out for discussion: 1. 1/4 of the work force was unemployed 2. the wage rate was 3/4 that of 1929 3. 1/5 of the nations banks had failed 4. prices were 3/4 their 1929 level Roosevelt was trying to solve all these problems *without* deficet spending (contrary to popular thought) and without the real socialism Huey Long was getting growing support for. Anyone want to take this any further? *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
plh@ukma.UUCP (Paul L. Hightower) (03/05/85)
>It has been very fashionable lately for the right-of-center crowd to >praise Roosevelt as a great president (something we left-of-centers' >have known all along!). But there is no evidence they would act any >differently than Hoover did. (Too little government intervention, >too late)... Objection! Hoover interfered far too much, jawboning industry into keeping wages high despite falling prices. Hoover succeeded in turning a recession into depression. Calvin Coolidge was a great president : he would have done nothing, and the business cycle would have corrected itself, as always. But Hoover and other social engineers deplored the cycle. Many of us right-of-center types deplore social engineering! >I throw these statistics of 1933 out for discussion: > >1. 1/4 of the work force was unemployed >2. the wage rate was 3/4 that of 1929 >3. 1/5 of the nations banks had failed >4. prices were 3/4 their 1929 level > >Roosevelt was trying to solve all these problems *without* deficit >spending (contrary to popular thought)... That's what we call a "Tax-and-Spend" Democrat. Paul Hightower University of Kentucky
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (03/11/85)
> >I throw these statistics of 1933 out for discussion: > > > >1. 1/4 of the work force was unemployed > >2. the wage rate was 3/4 that of 1929 > >3. 1/5 of the nations banks had failed > >4. prices were 3/4 their 1929 level > > > >Roosevelt was trying to solve all these problems *without* deficit > >spending (contrary to popular thought)... > > That's what we call a "Tax-and-Spend" Democrat. > > Paul Hightower > University of Kentucky I must be missing something here! If taxes aren't for raising revenue to be spent, what are they for? A national savings account? Just in case? *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
plh@ukma.UUCP (Paul L. Hightower) (03/14/85)
>> >I throw these statistics of 1933 out for discussion: >> > >> >1. 1/4 of the work force was unemployed >> >2. the wage rate was 3/4 that of 1929 >> >3. 1/5 of the nations banks had failed >> >4. prices were 3/4 their 1929 level >> > >> >Roosevelt was trying to solve all these problems *without* deficit >> >spending (contrary to popular thought)... >> >> That's what we call a "Tax-and-Spend" Democrat. >> >> Paul Hightower >> University of Kentucky > >I must be missing something here! If taxes aren't for raising revenue to >be spent, what are they for? A national savings account? Just in case? I prefer fewer taxes and less spending. Government spending is invariably inefficient and generally a misallocation of resources. Roosevelt didn't "solve" anything, except perhaps to delay recovery for a good decade or so. Paul Hightower
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (03/18/85)
> > I prefer fewer taxes and less spending. Government spending is invariably > inefficient and generally a misallocation of resources. Roosevelt didn't > "solve" anything, except perhaps to delay recovery for a good decade or so. > > Paul Hightower I will agree with your first sentence if I can change "less" to "more meaningful". I won't touch the second one because I'm afraid I'll fall into a battle with Libertarians. We don't know if the third sentence is true, economically. There are all the "what-ifs" (replacement of economic system, political system, involvement in WWII, etc.). But I will argue that the social costs were deffinately reduced by his action. And I think it was this action that certainly prevented the "what-ifs" from happening. Now, if you think he did not have a duty to address the social costs, we had better: a) end the disscussion b) move it to net.flame (we may become occasionally irrational!) c) follow-up by mail Thanks for showing an interest! *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***