New book on FDR & his economy

[LocktownDog]

My wife mentioned that she heard of a new book discussing how FDR's New Deal led to not only the depression but even present day economic woes. Of course, in much her loveable way, she neglected to write down the author or even the title. Does anyone have any info on this book?

Much thanks,
Richard

 

[GeniusInTheLamp]

I have a couple of recent books that have taken FDR and the New Deal to task:
FDR'S FOLLY by Jim Powell, and THE NEW DEALERS' WAR by Thomas Fleming.

 

[Fletch]

My wife mentioned that she heard of a new book discussing how FDR's New Deal led to not only the depression but even present day economic woes.

New Deal led to the depression? No one's saying that. The depression happened first.

Anyway, the newest revisionist (ie: supply side economic) look at the depression is The Forgotten Man by Amity Shales. FWIH, "if you like this kind of thing, it's the kind of thing you'll like."

 

[Lincsong]

I'll look for that book on Amazon. I knew several men who were "against the grain" of popular thought and viewed Roosevelt as all hype and no subtance, while others thought he was great. This would be an interesting read to see how a contemporary author views him in comparison to the views of people who experienced his presidency.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Most of the revisionist FDR books essentially echo the works of one of FDR's contemporaries -- John T. Flynn, author of "The Roosevelt Myth," published in 1948. Flynn was a journalist who had been one of the leading figures in the prewar isolationist movement, and a founding member of the America First organization, and during the early 40s he emerged as one of Roosevelt's most vocal critics. Much of his book, in turn, echoes arguments being made by the coalition of vocal New Deal critics who became prominent around the time of the 1936 election, receiving strong support in the McCormick and Hearst press, but considerably less from the voting public if the returns that year are any indication...

In any event, FDR was a polarizing figure even in his own time -- at least so far as the media was concerned.

 

[Lincsong]

Very true. It is amazing the transformation that happens to any President who dies in office.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Interesting sidenotes...

Even thought the 'New Dealers' blamed Hoover personally for the Depression, and took every opportunity to disparage him, most of the first "New Deal" legislation were things the Hoover proposed prior to FDR's election. Many of the actual "New Deals" were subsequently deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The founder of FEE (Foundation For Economic Education) in Irvington, NY, Leonard Read, tells the story that he was a vociferous New Deal advocate as head of the National Chamber of Commerce. He hit the road in the early days of 'deal' to convince businesses to cooperate with the regulations and restraints on business and industry. He got un-convinced when he spoke to a particular Industrialist who sat young Leonard down and taught a him thing or two about the free market, capitalism and free and enterprising people.

In one afternoon Leonard Read became, what we shall call "a Classical Liberal" and devoted himself to those principles for the rest of his life.

History has exonerated Herbert Hoover over the years and cast a new eye on the 'dealings' of FDR. His mentor John Maynard Keynes (and his protege' Galbraith have also been reevaluated.... over the "long run". (This is a reference to Keynes favorite retort to the oft asked question, "What will happen in the long run?" Keynes replied, "In the long run, we are all dead!") That's an encouraging economic principle.

-dixon cannon

 

[Lincsong]

My best friends Grandfather, lived in Oakland and had some relatives who were San Joaquin Valley farmers in the 1930's, while he worked for Southern Pacific Railroad. His Grandfather despised Roosevelt with a passion. On the other hand I have another friend whose father lived in Oakland and thought Roosevelt was great. It's still a polarizing subject to some people.

 

[Fletch]

Folks, economics is awfully close to politics, so much so that I don't feel I can respond to Dixon et al without going overtly political. I'll say only that the "reality" of a market economy is not exclusively defined by those who can afford to do business in it.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

I can certainly relate...

My Father was born into a turn-of-the-century, Mainline Philadelphia family (neighbors with a family called Kelly, though that's a story for a different day!). He was pretty free-wheeling and fancy free (not paying any income tax and all!) Everything was 'roaring' until October of '29 when the stock market plunged.

My Dad entered his 27th year in economic panic. It only got worse. By that time he was living in New York where a dynamic young Governor (FDR) was railing against the current administration, the "Wall Streeters" and "Big Business". My youthful dad-to-be bought it hook, line and sinker.

By the time I came along (in my Dads 50th year!), my Dad had been through his baptisim of fire and the New Deal was burned into his psyche. He had me carrying an "All the Way, With LBJ" sign back in '64! (shudder to think!)

Those who actually went through the Depression and suffered the consequences of economic failure may well have a very different perspective on the situation according to their own personal experiences. Economic principles and business imperatives can be pretty cruel and punishing.

But, in the final analysis, there has got to be value-for-value trading between individuals and groups for there to be any economy at all. And that translates into markets, business, and dollars changing hands - and profits.

Now that's not political, that's just the mechanics of ecomomy!

-dixon cannon

 

[LocktownDog]

Anyway, the newest revisionist (ie: supply side economic) look at the depression is The Forgotten Man by Amity Shales. FWIH, "if you like this kind of thing, it's the kind of thing you'll like."

That's the one. Thank you, sir. Its much appreciated.

Certainly does look revisionist, as you say. But that's okay. I like to see both sides of arguments.

Richard

 

[Fletch]

From the reviews I've seen, it looked as tho the book was intended mostly for true believers. But I haven't read it myself.

I do have to say that anyone whose thesis maintains that even Hoover did too much is going to have to be very selective in hi/r point of view in order to support that thesis. The great humanitarian of WWI certainly didn't bring much power to bear to aid the nation's charitable institutions, which were quickly and hopelessly swamped by the sheer volume of need.

BTW, the author's name is correctly spelled Shlaes, not Shales. It looks funny, but it's right.

 

[LocktownDog]

From the reviews I've seen, it looked as tho the book was intended mostly for true believers. But I haven't read it myself.

If so ... then it wouldn't be the first library book I took back after the first couple of chapters. I really can't stand it when an author tackles an historical subject with a very biased outlook. Just gimme the facts and let me form my own opinions.

Thanks Fletch.

Richard

 

[Lincsong]

The Facts are in the numbers, not the emotion.

An author cannot revise the facts. Take a look at the real numbers between 1933 and 1945. Look at; Gross National Product, Interest Rates, Bankruptcy Rates, Foreclosures, Farm Production, Growth in Wages, Inflation, Unemployment Rate, Tax Rate, National Debt, National Spending. Then compare them to 1929-1933. Twelve years is a loooong time for policies to be enacted, put into place and given a chance to work. ( Or even compare the numbers to March 1941.)

 

[Dr Doran]

Robert Reich (!) wrote an interesting, respectful if disagreeing, piece in the New York Review of Books about 2 months ago on Milton Friedman who also believed that FDR's policies continued and aggravated the Depression. According to Reich, Friedman, despite his alluring writing, was regarded as dishonest for that stance over the years.

Unless one is a diehard communist, the question isn't whether markets should exist, or whether people need to buy and sell for wealth to be generated; it's how much, and what form of, direction and regulation governments should perform.

If I understood the article correctly (no guarantee -- I'm an ancient historian, not a modern economist) the Friedman monetarist position holds that minimal direction and regulation is all a government should do. Manipulation should consist of increasing and decreasing the amount of currency in circulation.

Again, I am nothing faintly near an expert. This is what I remember from the article, that's all. I apologize if I have entered a realm where my understanding is inadequate.

 

[Lincsong]

Doran, you seem to have a good grasp of Milton Friedman. He was a man of his principles and was a firm believer in the free market. He would take a common pencil, hold it up and explain how the free market brought that pencil to market; the eraser was from a rubber farm in the Phillippines, the wood came from Washington state, the lead was from a mine in West Virginia, the copper sleeve that held the eraser to the wood was from Chile. All the materials were then trucked to a factory in Georgia etc. etc.

I haven't read any of Milton Friedman's writings on Roosevelt of the New Deal, but I am absolutely certain that he would have taken an academic approach and looked not at the emotions surrounding Roosevelt's policies but the results that those policies created.

 

[Dr Doran]

Let's hope the emotions wouldn't be a big part of his analysis. Yuck.

 

[Lincsong]

Anytime that emotions start to cloud the facts it does get yucky.

 

[Dr Doran]

Anytime that emotions start to cloud the facts it does get yucky.

According to the idiocy that is postmodernism, there are no facts -- or, as they spell it, "facts." And everything is determined by agendas and ideologies.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Doran, you seem to have a good grasp of Milton Friedman. He was a man of his principles and was a firm believer in the free market. He would take a common pencil, hold it up and explain how the free market brought that pencil to market; the eraser was from a rubber farm in the Phillippines, the wood came from Washington state, the lead was from a mine in West Virginia, the copper sleeve that held the eraser to the wood was from Chile. All the materials were then trucked to a factory in Georgia etc. etc.

I haven't read any of Milton Friedman's writings on Roosevelt of the New Deal, but I am absolutely certain that he would have taken an academic approach and looked not at the emotions surrounding Roosevelt's policies but the results that those policies created.

That analogy of the pencil is actually an essay by Leonard Read entitled, "I Pencil". Leonard Read was the founder of the Foundation For Economic Education (FEE), to which Milton Friedman contributed insights and articles.

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3308

-dixon cannon