/politics/ - News & Politics

>>5961

>Did he restore America or destroy it in the long run?

The latter, he was a willing participant in Marxist subversion

>>5961

Proof Keynesianism is a failure. Same for Hoover. Both of them fucked us.

Read Rothbard's "America's Great Depression".

>>5961

Keynesianism requires objective targeting of government action such that:

1 - any debts accrued in a recession are paid off during the subsequent boom.

2 - any deficit spending during a recession to bolster demand happens in areas which will help rather than compete with the private sector, such as common infrastructure or military R&D.

This only worked when most citizens were nationalist and had a common experience of honorably facing enemies of liberty on the battlefield.

When this faded, politicians lost the minimum of loyalty and honor required to maintain objective, fact-based targeting, and Keynesian policy failed.

>>6005

Or maybe it's a failure because the basic theory of Keynesian economics is that you can prevent hangovers by being constantly drunk.

Besides, federal power over huge geographical regions is a shit. They don't know shit about what's best in each individual state, let alone cities.

>>6006

False analogy.

I have a choice for you:

1 > taxing the productive discourages productivity

2 > government intervention in the economy doesn't work

>>6006

continued:

In addition to the rules set out in >>6005 , another qualifier is keynesian tools can only be used to stabilize economic boom/bust cycles, it CANNOT be utilized in place of structural reforms.

This is best illustrated by Reagan's military-industrial make-work program in the 80's. It's never been wound down because no structural reform fixed the fundamental weakness in the manufacturing sector.

Going back to your "drunk" analogy: it's more like anesthesia.

You anesthetize the wounded patient to stop the pain now, which is a noble and sane goal, but if you don't sew up the wound you've gotten nowhere.

>>5961

>Is he proof Keynesian economics works?

Not really, he didn't really implement it. Everyone more or less forgets about the second part of Keynesian economics, build the warchest back in the time of plenty

>>6010

>You anesthetize the wounded patient to stop the pain now, which is a noble and sane goal, but if you don't sew up the wound you've gotten nowhere.

10/10 analogy anon

>>6010

You forgot to mention the part where you stabbed them repeatedly with power tools causing the injury instead of letting them learn to use them.

In traditional economics, you don't even have busts on large scales because there isn't an overinvestment in production phase leading to a disparity of the research and extraction phases/eventual collapse of the sales/finalized product phase. Keynesian economics effectively create an inflation in the later phases due to malinvestment that is unsustainable leading to busts. You should not be funneling excess money into the wrong areas in the first place. Spending does not determine an economy- saving and careful investing does.

>>6036

http://fee.org/freeman/henry-hazlitt-and-the-failure-of-keynesian-economics/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&rct=j&q=economics%20in%20one%20lesson%20odf&ved=0CCIQFjABahUKEwjAq9OGzYbJAhVO8WMKHZNpDZw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffee.org%2Ffiles%2Fdoclib%2F20121116_economicsinonelesson.pdf&usg=AFQjCNG5EUB4yhYdPcTgvVaXvU3qeoZvew

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/14/progressive-keynesian-myths-debunked-the-coming-redistribution-of-political-and-economic-power-among-the-states/

>>6036

>busts don't exist

I have some fairy dust, magic beans, unicorns, and a bridge to sell you.

>>6056

Which is why national-scale busts are caused by governmental intervention into the market in 99% of situations. Right.

>>5961

>First president to recognize the Soviet Union

>New Deal Probably kept us in the recession longer and it took a war to get out.

>33rd degree freemason

>circumvented law to get us invested in the war

>provoked Japan, causing Pearl Harbor, to get us into WWII

>Brains Trust, cementing the place of academia in politics that has provided an entrance for Cultural Marxism ever since (i. e. the Cathedral in Moldbug's writings)

>Executive Order 6102 (criminalization of holding gold)

FDR seems pretty shit-tier to me. Also, Keynesian economics doesn't work. Austrian and Hamiltonian schools are much more valid in my opinion.

>>6103

Even Chicago is a valid school of thought. The issue I've found with Keynesians is they assume all modified theories are based on Keynesianism. Even Milton Friedman who was arguably one of the smarter Keynesian economists incorporated part of the Chicago/Austrian schools into his thoughts.

>>6081

except bank runs existed in the US before the nation even had a unified currency, let alone "government economic intervention".

Von Mises has some decent insights, but this bullshit nugget of his is not one of them.

>>6103

>praising the austrian school.

Can I interest you in a cure for the thetons eating your brain?

>>6127

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=currency%20panics%201800%27s&oq=currency%20panics%201800%27s&aqs=chrome..69i57.5497j1j7

>muh "small market" failures

Given the industrial revolution was still taking hold at that time, the ONLY markets were "small markets". The failures were pretty damn devastating when you consider the level of development.

This reminds me of the housing "recovery" because sales numbers that were squat "doubled" to jack AND squat...

>>6127

oh.. and in case you're going to say "muh central banks", here's a list of panics going back as far as economics was an established category of study:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banking_crises

>>6008

THIS.

>>5961

Mostly for the worse

>proof Keynesian economics works

Yeah , because 10 years of economic stagnation is a good example.

Its because of his policies and the ones he carried over from hoover that the great depression lasted as long as it did.

>Did he restore America or destroy it in the long run?

The new deal was essentially the thin edge of the wedge for much of the problems the US has today.

The bloated welfare state , the massive expansion of federal power ,

>>6103

>provoked Japan

How so?

There were many talks up until November of 1941 to restore trade agreements and for Japan to even keep some of the terriroites she had gained

>>6180

By signing the oil embargo against them. That was serious and he knew it. I've seen some stuff saying he deliberately ignored information so the attack would happen, too.

>>6202

> That was serious

well of course it was , that was the point if you wanted to try and stop the conflict.

Anything else would have been a slap on the wrist.

Its not like expulsion from the LoN did anything after Manchuria.

>he deliberately ignored information so the attack would happen

link?