He didn't actually do either. Both would have happened if he had not been president.
Greatest US Presidents of the last 100 Years
- Thread starter RulerOfDaPeople
- Start date
He didn't actually do either. Both would have happened if he had not been president.
Historians ranking, big effin' deal. He was an inspirational and charismatic leader, but those are not objective standards.
He made the depression last longer, this is a fact. Historians don't understand that because they don't understand economics and are mostly left-wing. His cartelization policies in particular had a catastrophic effect over employement - this is not even debated among people who understand the issue. He did get one economic thing right, and that was the expansion of the monetary base - but he did that late and he probably for the wrong reasons.
His dictatorial tendencies are also quite obvious. Attempts to pack the supreme court speak for themselves, and sending the japanese americans to concentration camps is one of the most shameful episodes of the 20th Century USA.
So really, what did he do that was so great? Ruined the economy, harmed democracy, that seems catastrophic to me. But hey, you like Johnson and Eisenhower and Reagan, so obvioulsy you don't care much for democracy, human rights and etc.
That's exactly the same ridiculous argument that russian nationalists use to praise Stalin: "he was not nice, made many mistakes, but was ultimately who saved Mother Russia from total anihilation". I say BS to you both.
The Great Depression would have been over much sooner had FDR stopped at monetary expansion. The rest of the New Deal was plain catastrophic; unemployement in particular remained that high for that long purely because of his idiotic policies.
He gets some points for supporting the allied side, but lets not strech it. His ambassador to the UK was a fascistoid nazi sympathiser who wanted Britain to capitulate. And the US was dragged to WW2 by the japanese; it was not FDR's personal decision.
No it isn't, unless your definition for "fact" is listening to a minority of studies and papers.
All those experts must be wrong, it isn't like they study this subject for years at time, now do they.
,
Lets see, Bush did this too and hell, good ol'Lincoln tried to get Chief Justice arrested for disagreeing with him.
His leadership during the Great Depression and WW2
Economy was ruined when he took power.
How? Elections happen under, its just people kept voting for him
Jesus, must you break every sentence?
And Lincoln did show some anti-democratic tendencies as well, but at least he had the excuse of an ongoing civil war.
Also, do address the fact that he sent american citizens to concentration camps because of their ethnicity.
A majority of the people that know what they're talking about. Including, for example, all of Obama economic advisers like Rommer and Summers.
Experts? Since when are historians experts in economics? Nope, I'll take the likes of Rommer and Summers (and all others that demonstrated how most of the New Deal was useless when not harmful).
If Bush did it, it must be OK? Is that your argument? And note that FDR did it to a far, far greater extent.
And Lincoln did show some anti-democratic tendencies as well, but at least he had the excuse of an ongoing civil war.
And he made sure the employement and product levels took years to reach potential again.
Democracy is more than elections.
Also, do address the fact that he sent american citizens to concentration camps because of their ethnicity.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
I'm pretty sure that I could drag up quite a few examples of economists agreeing with his policies, actually. Given that I only rarely hear anyone but crackpots or biased idiots still spouting that rhetoric... I think you're managing to convince yourself that's the majority by insisting that everyone else "doesn't know what they're talking about," though. Seriously, anyone who claims Roosevelt "ruined" the economy needs to look at some GDP figures once in a while. "Ruined" does not mean presiding over the end of the Depression, sorry. "Ruined" requires something like an economic downturn, which simply didn't happen...
Harming democracy: Yes, interning the Japanese was a bad idea. Did we know that at the time? No. It seemed like a very real threat that they might end up subverting the war effort, and forgive me, but imprisoning people does not compare to murdering millions of people and forcing native women into prostitution like the tyranny we were fighting...
Yes, I am making the argument that some sacrifices have to be made in war. World War Two was the closest thing to an apocalyptic struggle that has yet existed, and it's possibly the only war where you can draw lines of good and evil. Once again, America's bad points -- and there were a few, yes -- do not compare in any way, shape, or form to genocide, which was actively promoted by the Axis as domestic policy.
It helps the slower ppl.
Wow I didn't realize the world was depopulated to the point 2 people count as a majority. Also 1995 study proves that must historians and economists believe the New Deal helped, link (sorry if its hard to read, its the best I can find)
Someone who does years of research and works with economists to understand the situation at time is kinda an expert
How about Reagen then? He did it too. Clinton tried also... Hell every prez ever elected has tried to flood the Supreme Court with judges that agree with them, so you really can't hold it against FDR when he tried it.
And FDR had the Great Depression, WW2 and a coup attempt (which a Bush was part of)
Which am willing to bet would happen anyways cause you know the economy was RUINED
Sorry but your wrong on that. Democracy only covers elections, nothing else
Fine you want me too, I will. It was the right move at the time because we didn't know how far the Japanese had plan things out.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
None of them made a serious case for expanding the Court to fifteen justices just to get a fresh six on his side. I don't think it's being too rough to hold this one against him.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
I think it's rough to say that this counts as "dictatorial".
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
Well, yes, "dictatorial" would be pretty rough. I just wanted to hold it against him!
That said, I do think he had something that great presidents need: a connection with the people. His use of the radio probably made more of a difference in the public mood than a lot of policies could have... but I don't know if there's really a way to measure that.
That said, I do think he had something that great presidents need: a connection with the people. His use of the radio probably made more of a difference in the public mood than a lot of policies could have... but I don't know if there's really a way to measure that.
Well Lincoln did want to arrest one of them and am sure Jackson wanted to kill couple of them.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
You might not be too surprised to hear that I like those two guys less.
By any chance Theodore "The Ultimate Badass" Roosevelt be more to your liking?
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Yes, it is quite good that this thread is only in the last century, because I really don't want to go through another Lincoln debate.
RulerOfDaPeople
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,469
^
luiz, I've seen your points of why you think some of these guys are over rated, but not yet who you think were the best of the 20th century. Who do you think were the best US presidents of the last 100 years?
luiz, I've seen your points of why you think some of these guys are over rated, but not yet who you think were the best of the 20th century. Who do you think were the best US presidents of the last 100 years?
So I take it that you consider all Obama economic advisers crackpots or biased idiots? Because they all criticise the New Deal severely.
Note that I mention them because they are lefties and because it is un-PC to criticise people associated to Obama. I could name as many economists as you want, Nobel prize winners, professors at Harvard, MIT and Chicago, who have published papers criticising FDR's economics.
Now, now, GDP figures? How long did it take for GDP to get back to potential level (if you know what that is)? Why did unemployement actually rise months after stabilisation of the financial sector, and remained much above natural levels until WW2? Hum? Could it be about certain cartelization policies, could it? Could it be that a certain NIRA was a complete and utter failure (and quite moronic too)?
Who said that it does? It is a dictatorial act nonetheless, and he had other such anti-democratic acts.
And no, it only seemed necessary for bigots and idiots.
Nobody said it does, quit the dramatics.
Whatever Bush did doesn't compare to what Fidel Castro or Mugabe do, or the terrorists he fought against, but I think we can still criticise him, no?
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Fifty one percent of economists disagreed with the notion that the New Deal "lengthened and deepened" the Great Depression. Source.
Now, I hate to be an ass, but sorry, this calls for it:
ru·in (rōō'ĭn) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Total destruction or disintegration, either physical, moral, social, or economic.
Forgive me, but that's ridiculously far from "ruined". Argue that Roosevelt's policy wasn't beneficial for the economy, fine. Argue that he "ruined" the economy and you need to get a little perspective.
*********
As for "dictatorial" tendencies, let's see.
He ran for democratic reelection every single time, with little evidence of rigging or any of the ridiculous nonsense that usually plagues a dictatorship. Yes, he tried to pack the Supreme Court. He was attempting to get things moving faster, and with the crisis he inherited, while I think his methods were undesirable, they were understandable. At the least, he was not some venomous blood-sucker who only desired power.
Internment camps: I did not say I agreed with this policy, so stop attacking me like I did. However, you're deliberately obfuscating the facts if you try to say they're anything like concentration camps. Yes, there was racism involved. I'm sorry, the world was racist for the vast majority of the 20th Century. Roosevelt can't be judged by a modern yardstick on that account, or every leader from 1800 to 1950 was the worst that has ever walked on the earth.
Now, I hate to be an ass, but sorry, this calls for it:
ru·in (rōō'ĭn) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Total destruction or disintegration, either physical, moral, social, or economic.
Forgive me, but that's ridiculously far from "ruined". Argue that Roosevelt's policy wasn't beneficial for the economy, fine. Argue that he "ruined" the economy and you need to get a little perspective.
*********
As for "dictatorial" tendencies, let's see.
He ran for democratic reelection every single time, with little evidence of rigging or any of the ridiculous nonsense that usually plagues a dictatorship. Yes, he tried to pack the Supreme Court. He was attempting to get things moving faster, and with the crisis he inherited, while I think his methods were undesirable, they were understandable. At the least, he was not some venomous blood-sucker who only desired power.
Internment camps: I did not say I agreed with this policy, so stop attacking me like I did. However, you're deliberately obfuscating the facts if you try to say they're anything like concentration camps. Yes, there was racism involved. I'm sorry, the world was racist for the vast majority of the 20th Century. Roosevelt can't be judged by a modern yardstick on that account, or every leader from 1800 to 1950 was the worst that has ever walked on the earth.
As I mentioned earlier, there is one component of the New Deal that was actually very important to end the Depression: the expansion of the monetary base. But that is not what non-economists think about when talking about the ND, it was not really Roosevelt's doing, and was done without decent comprehension of the effects. Because of that, many economists may feel tempted to vote "no" even though they strongly disagree with te traditional, fiscal components of the ND (not to mention the absurd components that even fiscal activists condemn nowadays).
Second, turn your quote upside down. 50% of the economists thnik that he made the Depression longer and deeper! And those are obviously the most prestigious economists, like Golsbee and Rommer and Summers, to name lefties. Now, is that the "greatest president of the 20th century"? Someone accused by the better half of economists of making the great depression worst? If you take away the monetary component of the ND, the voting would be even more catastrophic for FDR.
Maybe it wasn't total, if you want to be pedantic. Let's call it a brutal destruction.
The recovery was actually tremendously slow compared to virtually every other major economic crisis the US faced.
Additionally, look at unemployement figures:
Year Unemployment (% labor force)
1933 24.9
1934 21.7
1935 20.1
1936 16.9
1937 14.3
1938 19.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#Aiding_the_unemployed
By 1938, 19% of the american population was unemployed! Note that one cannot reasonably blame this all on the events of 1929: it is patently obvious that the New Deal's policies were resposible for keeping unemployement at amazingly high levels for many years. I say that's quite ruinous.
Chávez and Putin also run and won elections; yet they both have some dictatorial tendencies (if you disagree we might as well stop this discussion right here). Packing the Supreme Court to the extent he attempted is quite serious. Additionally, his hunger for power (4 terms!!!) is not coherent with healthy republican democratic tradition.
Racism was more prevalent back then, but not every country in the world was sending citizens to concentration camps because of their race, you know. It was pretty bad even for the time's standards (which was not limited to the Nazis and Imperial Japan).
CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
Ahh my bad. Used to my list for Greatest president of all time. Will edit.
CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
He didn't actually do either. Both would have happened if he had not been president.
Most economists at the time said Reaganomics wouldn't work and to get rid of inflation unemployment would have had to gone into double digits. The combination of tight monetary policy (fight inflation) and tax cuts (stimulate growth) was the bullet that took down stagflation.
I'm sure the Soviets would have collapsed in due time. However, scaring the crap out of them and making them think we could counter their arsenal of nuclear weapons causing a massive build up on their side accelerated the process.
Similar threads
