Constructive gadfly
Published on October 9, 2008 By stevendedalus In Politics

 

On this site for years I was arguably the only one who would on occasion mention the New Deal in EARNEST. It seems with Reaganomics in disarray the ghost of FDR hovers between the headlines. Apparently the time is right to terminate Ponzi's funny money game and begin establishing an economic system that prioritizes real investments in making THINGS that truly matter in lieu of money making money and losing sight of the pragmatic aim of wealth.

 


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 09, 2008

There is a reason you are the only one - no one wants to deepen a recession into a depression!  It is not that "Reaganomics" are in disarray, but that government regulation has been abused by government (telling business how to run themselves) and business (taking advantage of bad regulations) to subvert the system.

God help us if the New deal comes back.  Then this crises will be real and a lot worse.

on Oct 09, 2008

The New Deal was never discussed as a positive in any of the history classes I've taken. I think it had it's good and bad points, though (at least in respect to Agriculture). I live on a farm with a large berm that was constructed by the Tennessee Valley Authority during the period in question. We still have some problems with erosion, but it is a lot better than it would've been otherwise. On the other hand, the Soil Conservation Service encouraged the use of kudzu to help fight erosion, and it's slowly strangling us here in the South. And while there are some advantages to the implementation of farm subsidies, I don't think it is always the best answer.

 

As far as general economics goes, I'm inclined to agree with Dr. Guy. But like I said about the New Deal, it's got it's pros and cons as well.

 

I found out today that FDR and Palin are related, though. Never saw that coming.

on Oct 09, 2008

It is fascinating to me how some can be so blind and not bat an eye while regurgitating a confabulation.  Reagonomics did not cause this - a few select congressmen, intent on keeping their frigging heads in the sand when the inevitable law of unintended consequences was about to bear fruit, refused to allow bad policy & bad regulation to be remedied, that's what caused this.  This sort of broad-brush indictment is intellectually lazy & below you, Richard.

on Oct 12, 2008

This sort of broad-brush indictment is intellectually lazy & below you, Richard.
Reaganomics deliberately set out to dismantle the New Deal that built the middle class in favor of an aristocracy that knew best how to trickle down [now cloggled] goodies to the masses without the equation that the masses too need income to consume--without having to go into hock for them.

on Oct 12, 2008

Reaganomics deliberately set out to dismantle the New Deal

Not really. Heres the basics of Reganomics.

(1) reduce the growth of government spending, (2) reduce the marginal tax rates on income from both labor and capital, (3) reduce regulation (4) reduce inflation by controlling the growth of the money supply.

The goal of these objectives was to increase savings, investment, and economic growth. Balancing the budget, restoring healthy financial markets, and reducing inflation and interest rates were also key.

Rather decent goals. Unfortunately we had the banking lobby step in and write laws that ruined the countries ability to increase savings as well as take advantage of laws/deregulation in order to try to destroy one of its main competitors, the GSE's.

We had several politicians step in who not only refused to enforce the laws on the books but also hindered the states from trying to enact laws to do such. Deregulation in itself did not create the meltdown. It simply lit the match. It was governments inaction to respond to abuses which came out of deregulation that poured gasoline on the fire.

We have also had several politians step in who are/were more concerned with buying votes and control for their party which has led to the inability to balance the budget.

 

 

on Oct 16, 2008

1) reduce the growth of government spending, (2) reduce the marginal tax rates on income from both labor and capital, (3) reduce regulation (4) reduce inflation by controlling the growth of the money supply.
Precisely my point--dismantle the New Deal. However, reducing the money supply was actually the inverse during Reagan. It was Voelker who temporarily had to control the supply when inflation went haywire during the energy crunch in the 70s.

on Oct 16, 2008

It was Voelker who temporarily had to control the supply when inflation went haywire during the energy crunch in the 70s.

The energy crises was during Nixon and Ford.  The inflation haywire was carter.  Your time line is off somewhat.

on Oct 18, 2008

The energy crises was during Nixon and Ford.
Yes, but Carter got its backlash causing inflation.

on Oct 20, 2008

Yes, but Carter got its backlash causing inflation.

No, Carter was just an incompetant boob.

on Oct 24, 2008
Are you telling me that when gas went from 20 cents a gallon to a buck that didn't cause inflation? Get real.
on Oct 24, 2008

Are you telling me that when gas went from 20 cents a gallon to a buck that didn't cause inflation? Get real.

No, I am not telling you that.  Wage-Price controls?  A boondoggle in itself.  But that was not the excessive inflation that Carter caused, nor was it energy that caused it.

 

on Oct 29, 2008
Anytime price controls are lifted businesses go bananas to thaw the freeze. The decade of the 70s were just bad and had to play out--even Volker had a heck of a time and when he finally got it right who but Reagan benefited. BTW, doc, why am I getting the quick reply blue screen? I have to block copy and paste--clicking qouotes doesn't work.
on Oct 29, 2008

decade of the 70s were just bad and had to play out--even Volker had a heck of a time and when he finally got it right who but Reagan benefited.

The difference between a New Dealer and a Reaganite.  I think that Reagan made his own luck.  And yes, Volcker sure helped him.  But Volcker was there for Carter - he just did not know how to do things right.

BTW, doc, why am I getting the quick reply blue screen? I have to block copy and paste--clicking qouotes doesn't work.

Dont know.  Try deleting your cookies and cached files.  I just tried in both forums and regular JU and both seem to be working now.

on Nov 04, 2008

I think that Reagan made his own luck. And yes, Volcker sure helped him. But Volcker was there for Carter - he just did not know how to do things right.
Wow, and you once accused me of lionizing FDR!

on Nov 04, 2008

Wow, and you once accused me of lionizing FDR!

You do.  But I dont deny I lionize Reagan.

2 Pages1 2