The New Deal Is Back

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

 

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.

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

Yes, but Carter got its backlash causing inflation.

No, Carter was just an incompetant boob.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

Wow, and you once accused me of lionizing FDR!

You do.  But I dont deny I lionize Reagan.

15.9% - The unemployment rate in 1931.

17.2% - The unemployment rate in 1939, after 8 years of The New Deal.

Let's hope The New Deal is not back.

I think it just got elected.

That's because there was so much more employable and dynamically in transit. TVA finishes, for instance, electricians move south, kerosene manufactureres close, etc.

If that is not the capital of spin!   I dont even think the kool aid drinkers will buy that one.