FDR vs JFK

Oh my God, what did I start?

thellama73 wrote: no president has ever been worse than FDR.

Bush jr?


Edited by Triceratopsoil - November 13 2012 at 03:03

thellama73 wrote: Anyway, I am not arguing that every dime taxed or borrowed would be spent wisely elsewhere. I am arguing that, since taxation reduces how much money people have to spend, they will on average spend less than they would in the absence of taxation. And I am arguing that some of the money that goes towards government bonds would go towards other useful things, not all of it. I don't see how anyone could disagree with those points.

Let's not forget the underlying assumption that government spending is somehow more effectual or efficient than any other spending. 

Briefly, it is not, mainly because it is easy to be a poor steward of other people's money.

thellama73 wrote: Anyway, I am not arguing that every dime taxed or borrowed would be spent wisely elsewhere. I am arguing that, since taxation reduces how much money people have to spend, they will on average spend less than they would in the absence of taxation. And I am arguing that some of the money that goes towards government bonds would go towards other useful things, not all of it. I don't see how anyone could disagree with those points.

I don't. That should be obvious. The question is: What about the money that otherwise wouldn't be efficiently spend? If I'm not mistaken, Keynesian economics argue that in certain situations decisions that make sense on an individual level can hurt the overall economy. The idea then is that the government, because it operates at a macro-economic level, can identify these problems and correct them through purposeful spending. I don't believe that Keynesians would advocate increased government spending in just about any situation. Only when the free market is unable to reach equilibrium on its own. And again, if I'm not mistaken, critics of Keynesian economics disagree that such a situation exists.

thellama73 wrote: This means that an increase in government spending will have a smaller affect on GDP than that equation would lead you to believe, but they never tell you that in economics classes, which I think is terrible.

Well, let's blame awful economics classes then. I vaguely remember reading critical thoughts on both FDR and Keynesian economics in school, but our teacher was utterly unable to comprehend anything about economics beyond the most basic ideas, so this kind of fell by the wayside. As did many other things. Economics was the only class I ever had where I had a better understanding of the subject than my teacher despite knowing virtually nothing.

thellama73 wrote: I just think it's a very meddlesome and inefficient solution to a problem that will correct itself more quickly if left alone.

Wasn't the whole idea of Keynesian economics born out of a situation where the Great Depression stubbornly refused to fix itself, despite what all economists at the time believed?

Epignosis wrote: Let's not forget the underlying assumption that government spending is somehow more effectual or efficient than any other spending.  Briefly, it is not, mainly because it is easy to be a poor steward of other people's money.

Wait a minute. If the government collects a person's money through taxes, it stops being his money and becomes the government's money. The government isn't a steward of anybody else's money. The idea is that sometimes macro-economic decisions can be more effective than micro-economic ones. Thus, the government should collect money that would otherwise be misallocated and spend it where it makes sense. Whether or not that works is up for debate.

thellama73 wrote: No one disputes that market failures such as externalities exist. Not even the most die hard Austrian school economist disputes that. We just think that the solution is worse than the original problem.

Why? I understand if you're skeptical about its effectiveness, but the idea that it makes things worse seems to be quite odd to me. The principle seems quite plausible: The government identifies a market failure and allocates it own spending to help fix it. Unless the government fails to do that the correctly, I see no reason why this should make the situation worse.

thellama73 wrote: No not really. Hoover started efforts to "fix" the economy pretty much right from the get go, and FDR expanded them. The recession of 1920, which was extremely deep, snapped back without intervention in a year and a half.

I guess I have some reading up to do on that matter. But I'm skeptical about the idea that because one recession snapped back quickly, another would have done the same. If there's anything I've learned about economics, it's that it's a complex and fairly unpredictable field. One recession isn't necessarily like the other.

thellama73 wrote: The point is that the people who make the decisions about how the money is spent do not get to personally keep what is left over, as you do with your own paycheck, so there is no incentive for them to be careful with it.

Politicians are paid for making these decisions, and the effects that their decisions have on the economy strongly influence whether or not they get re-elected. Isn't that incentive enough to be careful? I find it absurd that a politician would think "Oh well, nothing's at stake for me here so I might as well just do as I please".

Political Archives: The Ultimate Circus For Adults Source

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: thellama73 wrote: No not really. Hoover started efforts to "fix" the economy pretty much right from the get go, and FDR expanded them. The recession of 1920, which was extremely deep, snapped back without intervention in a year and a half. I guess I have some reading up to do on that matter. But I'm skeptical about the idea that because one recession snapped back quickly, another would have done the same. If there's anything I've learned about economics, it's that it's a complex and fairly unpredictable field. One recession isn't necessarily like the other.

And I'm skeptical that it wouldn't have done the same. You're operating from the null hypothesis that it is both necessary and possible for government's to correct economic fluctuations. To me, this is a positive statement that needs proof. I have never seen anything to indicate that this is in fact the case.

We have had deep recessions that have snapped back quickly with no government intervention. We have never had a deep recession that snapped back quickly with lots of government intervention. Why do I have to prove my viewpoint? Shouldn't you have to prove yours?

stonebeard wrote: There's a Newsweek special edition out now (went into Barnes and Noble because I had time to kill) about the greatest presidents. I don't know If I can remember them all, but there were ten. Among them: FDR Teddy JFK Lyndon Johnson Ronald Reagan Barack Obama Bill Clinton Woodrow Wilson Maybe it was about "modern" presidents, because hey lopsided. Anyway, I thought of all you guys.

There's a tendency to equate "great" with "accomplished." Those presidents all certainly accomplished a lot (except for Bill Clinton) but are all accomplishments necessarily good? My favorite presidents were all good stewards who didn't do too much to screw things up.


Edited by thellama73 - November 14 2012 at 11:00

The Dark Elf wrote: I'll vote for FDR. Since the mere mention of his name sends current Republicans into paroxysms of neo-con rabidity, it is obvious he served the country well. I regard him highly.

Feel better, bro?

The Dark Elf wrote: I'll vote for FDR. Since the mere mention of his name sends current Republicans into paroxysms of neo-con rabidity, it is obvious he served the country well. I regard him highly.

Why do liberals hurl the word neo-con around as an insult? Neo-cons are closer to Democrats in ideology than classical conservatives. Furthermore, I don't know anyone on this board who is a neo-con or espouses neo-con principles. Could it be that they don't know what words mean?