That guy who insists that recovery from the Great Depression would have happened sooner if government sat on their hands

>lmao dude wwII got out us of the great depression
>doesn't realize wwII was a Keynesian multiplier

>mfw people think gov created the 08 recession why it prevented it from being Great Depression 2.0

AUDIT THE FED

>that guy who thinks temporary economic relief is worth destroying an economy's sustainability and creating a perpetual welfare state

name 1 successful industrial country (no microstates) without a welfare state

t. Goldman Sachs employee

Having a welfare state doesn't make a country successful though. I suspected Japan might not, and did some googling. They have a very limited welfare state, with only 1 million recipients, half of them being the elderly.

There is no such thing as a "successful industrial country". Industrial countries are by definition shitholes.

it is if they don't pay more in tax than is spent on them

Haven't seen him in a while.

Shitholes with longer life expectancy and less violence than less industrialized countries.

Was he correct?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=ymrxyy54kVE

What a scholar. I wonder if he wrote his dissertation on this subject. He exudes a consummate understanding of the subject. My favorite thing is that a good half the video are just character attacks, like pointing out that he was a cripple somehow tarnishes his legacy.

Pretty much everything he says showcases an immense ignorance on FDR, American political history & the Great Depression.

This feels more like a /pol/ thread than a Veeky Forums one.

>people who change the definitions of terms to technically be able to truthfully make some statements that are terribly misleading at best

>hey, guys, the unemployment rate is really low because I changed 'employed' to include people who gave up on finding work altogether

>hey, guys, I changed the definition of 'deportation' to include denying people entry entirely, and asking some to leave of their own volition

>hey, guys, I won't change the definition of 'hatecrime' to include anybody and everybody who commits a violent act against another based on their sex, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, religiosity, (or lack of) political affiliation, etcetera, because then we'd have to actually report all of those hatecrimes commited by islamists, blacks, and other groups of people other than whites

iLmao

>FDR haters are scrawny nu-males

unsurprising

>I changed 'employed' to include people who gave up on finding work altogether

Nobody 'changed' the definition of the official unemployment rate. Unemployment is tracked in a number of indices marked U1-U6. U3 is and has been the official unemployment rate.

>This feels more like a /pol/ thread than a Veeky Forums one
>posts 2ldr /pol/ nonsense

You went full meme, you dipshit

Japan has public healthcare, public transportation, and State Owned Enterprises.

Not to mention their Central Bank owns half the Japanese government bonds in existence.

Interesting fact: the platform of the republican party in 1936 called for essentially many of the same programs of the New Deal. Stabilization of the housing sector, agricultural reforms, public works, industry recovery

There's a group of people like the bozo in this video who make it sound like FDR was just exacerbating the depression with his ineffectual programs and if the government did absolutely nothing the depression would have ended sooner thanks to the free market, when in reality nobody, not even Roosevelt's political foes advocated for that approach. Nor is there much economic data to support the idea that the American economy was poised to make a complete comeback without the meddling influence of Roosevelt.

I have a job you dirty hippie

Are you joking?
I live in Japan and I pay many thousands of tax dollars every year to fund people's government pensions.

The government enabled the banks, who created the 08's crysis.

He's right you know.

>yfw you realize Oswald Spengler was right about our culture nearing its final decay into winter proven by the exaltation of the urban cosmopolitan over the virtuous rural agrarian villa life

>that guy that says trickle-down economics

>virtuous rural agrarian villa life
Farming is big business too bucko.

This. Even in biographies sucking Roosevelt's dick nowadays they acknowledge that he prolonged the Great Depression (just like Hoover) but still value his retarded ass for "charisma".
Well actually those who still treat the textbook version as the accurate one usually say that they don't know much about economics anyway. Keynesians aren't fucking human holy shit.

So social democrats who made up this conspiracy theory?

Having an efficient welfare state does--as it shows that the Government can deal with common issues happening to the people and deal with them in an efficient way.

Blame the cosmopolitan elite for the mechanization of farming and the destruction of the independent yeoman

>2016
>being a Keynesian

Immigration's not always very good though, and alot of it depends on what you expect the economy to do, if the goal is to increase gdp then yes, immigration is almost always a defacto good thing for the economy, but as population grows, so does the competition for jobs, lowering wages and therefore living standards.

>Even in biographies sucking Roosevelt's dick nowadays they acknowledge that he prolonged the Great Depression
Care to explain how exactly? It's widely acknowledged that the New Deal wasn't responsible for economic recovery, but the argument that he 'prolonged the depression' usually comes from Keynesians who believe he didn't spend enough in after '37 when the economy started to slide again.

>we are all immigrants thus we should have no borders

Really? Then there's something they and Austrians agree on only they draw different conclusions. Hoover started the process of government intervention (how to spot a dumb textbook-tier book; look if it repeats the laissez faire myth) and FDR later expanded it with disastrous results. FDR's economic advisor, Rexford Tugwell admitted that Roosevelt's New Deal was based on Hoover's.

If anyone is short on time the introduction alone is a good summary of the GD and New Deal. It also names a few other useful sources including this book.

>how to spot a dumb textbook-tier book; look if it repeats the laissez faire myth
wut?

>tfw no abolition of the welfare-state and the rebuilding of the black two-parent family

But that's right.

There used to be a myth that Hoover was just like his two predecessors from the Republican party and supported non-interventionism which is obviously a lie.

>yo Calvin Coolidge sucked the 20's were wack lol laissez faire doesn't work haha

Why is he so based?

I love this shit. (YOU) didn't know how unemployment was calculated due to your own ignorance. It must be a conspiracy.

Constitutional technocracy when?

He's been inoculated against Marxism

And Harding introduced important an important piece of legislation (Budget and Accounting Act of 1921), prevented an economic crisis in the early 20s and overall was far better than people think and much better than JFK who was the president for about as long as Harding.

>that guy who cherry picks facts to support his opinion while refusing to acknowledge both contrary evidence and the fact that his opinion may be, in whole or in part, wrong

>The government enabled the banks, who created the 08's crysis

The private sector infiltrated and subverted the government through lobbyism.

Not to mention the fucktard voters who love deregulation so much that they want to get rid of the government entirely and have corporate feudalism where maximum adherence to game theory, purely dominant strategies, and lazy short-term profit "solutions" and vulture capitalism always win.

Now let's argue whether the burden of morality is on the briber or the bribee.

Here's the issue I take with this stance.

Firstly, it judges the New Deal entirely on its economic impact. That the New Deal was a failure because it didn't lift the US out of the depression. But the New Deal was as much a social & political transformation as it was an economic stimulus. In many respects the New Deal was a resounding success. It essentially turned the Democrat party into a new liberal party which would dominate congress for the next half century. It also left in place enduring social reforms & regulatory agencies. Social Security, FDIC, SEC, & the FCC which while ineffective to cause an immediate revivification of the economy were good ideas in the long run.

Secondly, that it implies that the alternative of doing nothing would have been better than Roosevelt's something. Roosevelt undeniable made mistakes in his economic policy, but most of it was on firm economic footing. There's a tendency to decry Roosevelt as a fiscal heretic for deficit spending, and simultaneously blame him for raising taxes which hampers growth, when it was Roosevelt's own general adherence to free-market principles and his personal value of a balanced budget that compelled him to raise taxes to pay for his programs in the first place. America was alone among the big industrial nations at the time to NOT nationalize any large industry during the Depression, which speaks to Roosevelt's leanings towards mostly free-market solutions.

All in all, I think it's important to understand the choices made at the time in the context of when they were made, and not to simply judge from on high decades after the fact with the benefit of hindsight

>It essentially turned the Democrat party into a new liberal party

Wilson already did that and more. Also not a very pleasant story. He was basically a cultist of the Hegel-like state worship.

>Wilson already did that and more
He really didn't since the republican party maintained a large progressive wing up until Roosevelt's New Deal really brought them into the fold.

And during the 1912 all three main candidates had very similar progressive agenda. Wilson was the most radical though neither he nor the Democratic party was known for this back then. A far more interventioa far cry from Grover Cleveland's years. Above all he hated the US constitution.

So you're still wrong. He didn't politically transform the democrat party into the liberal party.

After Wilson, FDR was the next Democratic president so if the party itself didn't change to be more left wing like Wilson after he became the president and it happened later then this is really something that I missed though it still made no impression on the course of history really.

Now that I think about it I remember that one of his slogans during the 1932 election was "End Hoover's socialism."

>Even in biographies sucking Roosevelt's dick nowadays they acknowledge that he prolonged the Great Depression
[Citation needed]

Read some of the books mentioned in this thread. They should be easy to download. Check the bibliography or read the introduction looking for key phrases like "historians" or "economists" or I don't know I won't do it for you.

>The government enabled the banks,

The government also indirectly enabled my murder of a chicken.
Does that mean I am not at fault?

>FDR's economic advisor, Rexford Tugwell admitted that Roosevelt's New Deal was based on Hoover's.
[Citation needed]

>myth

Name one successful nation with no murders

>Wilson was a legit KKK racist
>hailed by liberals today
>Coolidge was the first president to pass anti-lynching laws
>"lol dumb conservatives why do you hate blacks MUH SOUTHERN STRATEGY"

Destruction of the Democratic Party when?

>neoliberalism and interventionist policies

Complete opposites. What are you even talking about?
>an economy's sustainability

All Keynesian policy does is expand purchasing power to keep up with improving production capabilities so as to avoid overproduction.
>The private sector infiltrated and subverted the government through lobbyism.

That's an interesting interpretation. The government couldn't have been infiltrated because it has always been an institution that exists for the bidding of the rich.

>prevented an economic crisis in the early 20s

But not a needless recession

>private sector infiltrates government
>not the other way around

2016 was the destruction of the Democratic party. Where have you been?

Wilson isn't really hailed by anyone. Academics have an ambivalent attitude towards him. His legacy is generally being a champion of idealistic expectations that end in bitter disappointment

>Firstly, it judges the New Deal entirely on its economic impact. That the New Deal was a failure because it didn't lift the US out of the depression.

What? The depression ended 3 months after it started. 1929 GDP was recovered by early 1936.

Truuu although their voting blocs are out breeding whites
Indeed I agree, although he is still sucked off by the occasional JFK type dem.

>Read some of the books mentioned in this thread.
Not an argument

>"loool Coolidge was wack and only cared about the rich!"
>4% unemployment
>"fuck yeah! FDR sure showed all those richfags!"
>unemployment never came below double digits

"It" being the New Deal

>le economic conditions are the same throughout all years and the sitting president accountd for all of it

>depressing the wages of the working class is good for the economy

>le classic keyenesian "ye but if we HADN'T DONE ANYTHING the economy would be ever worse and never recover haha how convienientt we can't point to an example of that happening though lol" meme

>people treat "the economy" as a coherent whole

Do your own homework.

>we can't point to an example of that happening though lol
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

But Harding prefered a balanced budget.

Hahahahah what are you doing on this board?

>I don't have to provide evidence to back my claims
>no the burden of proof is on you

I don't see any arguments or sources here

The consumer economy, ie. the economy of the working class certainly is coherent

>Not to mention the fucktard voters who love deregulation so much that they want to get rid of the government entirely and have corporate feudalism where maximum adherence to game theory, purely dominant strategies, and lazy short-term profit "solutions" and vulture capitalism always win.

What deregulation ,specifically?

Noticed something since Nov 8th?

... Anything about Harding? That was kind of his thing you know. Like this. I really don't feel like going through pages right now because someone doesn't know the basics. Even NYT started redefining Harding. I would've never thought they would write something like this but they did.

nytimes.com/2015/08/27/opinion/rethinking-warren-g-harding.html?_r=0

>proves my point by showing what happens when Keynesians are in power and how it turned into the greatest economic calamity in americas history

Harding was based, to bad the lying media had to go after those jewish dome scandals after his death and tar him

Yeah. Coolidge was like Harding minus the scandals. I wonder what happened since McKinley. Teddy Roosevelt and Taft weren't exactly pro-free market. Not like them at least. Maybe the Republicans just wanted to be as opposed to Wilson's ideas as possible.

> That guy who thinks the invisible hand of the free market will solve everything

shiggy diggy doo

Teddy was legit the most corrupt son of a bitch ever. His entire anti-trust meme was just to go after people who didnt give him campaign donations. He was a european-like warmongering nigger who fucked up our economy.

at least he made national parks.

Life isn't perfect and there will always be problems but yeah people generally know more about what to do with their money than government. And it's better for dealing with economic depressions anyway.

>mfw we're almost at full employment