Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Can Obama Be FDR?

By Robert Kuttner, Chelsea Green Publishing. Posted November 7, 2008.


A new book shows how Obama needs to address the economic emergency, starting with practical help for families and individuals.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Robert Kuttner

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The following is an excerpt from Chapter 4 of Obama's Challenge by Robert Kuttner.

When Barack Obama takes office as America's forty-fourth president, he will face an acute, three-pronged economic challenge. The financial system will be in crisis to a greater degree than at any time since 1933. America's international imbalances will be on a worsening downward slide. And the economy will be in a deepening recession supercharged by falling consumer purchasing power, declining housing values, and cascading business losses.

In addition, he faces four chronic problems that recession will only intensify. The recession will exacerbate a thirty-year trend of increasing inequality and insecurity. The crisis in energy and climate change will be deepening; the unreliability and cost of health care will be relentlessly worsening. The decay of America's public spaces and facilities will persist. All of this will require a more activist use of government than we've seen in at least four decades.

As we saw in chapter 3, real obstacles to change are compounded by attitudinal ones. Assuming that he is not disabled by an undertow of dubious counsel, what exactly should Obama do? He will have no shortage of advice, much of it contradictory, and the risk will be either to aim too low or to run off in several directions at once before having a clear strategic plan.

At every step, he needs to restore confidence -- not just with inspiring words or grand aspirations, but by demonstrating that help is on the way. He also needs to transform prevailing ideological assumptions, so that the practical help attracts wide support and builds public approval for even bolder measures using activist government that will take longer to enact -- and to reclaim support for the more fundamental progressive idea that government plays a constructive and necessary role.

In Roosevelt's famous First Hundred Days, FDR launched dozens of initiatives. Within just over three months, fifteen pieces of landmark legislation had passed Congress and remade the relationship between economy and government.

Obama does not need to match that record. But at the outset of his first term, he does need to address the economic emergency on three tracks. Longer-term reforms such as universal health insurance can come a little later.

First, Treasury Secretary Paulson's policy of ad hoc financial bailouts needs to be turned into a more systematic program, with explicit principles of prudential regulation. The recapitalization of America's damaged financial system must continue, perhaps at an expanded scale. But it needs to be part of a coherent strategy for restoring a sound financial system -- one that the Bush administration has been incapable of creating. Second, since the housing collapse is so central both to the damaged condition of America's credit markets and to falling consumer demand, Obama needs to work with Congress on a much more robust housing and mortgage rescue program. The Frank-Dodd mortgage refinancing law and Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac guarantee enacted in late July was not a bad start, but it is not enough to do the job. And third, we will need a dramatic expansion of public spending, well into the hundreds of billions of dollars, as classic anti-depression medicine.

Begin with Low-Hanging Fruit

Obama's earliest measures should be devoted to delivering practical help to individuals, families, and communities. That will both relieve economic suffering and establish him as a leader, as well as moderate the recession. By spring 2009, we will need an immediate recovery package in the range of $200 to $300 billion, and not primarily in the form of tax cuts. That money will be needed to extend unemployment benefits; deliver money to states and localities whose falling revenues cause them to cut services in a recession; and provide the first installment on a long-term effort to rebuild public infrastructure, with an emphasis on both deferred basic maintenance and efficient renewable energy. Such public outlays can also speed development of technologies that will improve America's competitiveness and provide such twenty-first-century basics as universal broadband service.

The public works funds could be combined with an increase in job training subsidies to reduce bottlenecks in the supply of skilled workers. For example, retrofitting homes and offices for energy efficiency, building on pilot programs already operating in some small cities, could be a quick source both of good jobs and local economic stimulus. This would also yield savings on America's energy bill -- which would reduce our trade imbalance and put more money in consumers' pockets.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: economy, obama, financial crisis, mortgage meltdown

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bankruptcy Reform and "Medicare for All" Need to be First
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 7, 2008 12:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More investment for infrastructure is indeed needed but this will take too long to work into itself into the economy.

With Bankruptcy Reform, in particular, legalizing house price reductions in bankruptcy court could solve many foreclosures almost immediately. They are also necessary because so many mortgages have several owners with different " pieces" of the mortgage. Chris Dodd already proposed this but was rebuffed by the banking interests. Bankruptcy reform could also be extended to the "cramdown" of valuations on cars and appliances. The 2005 Bankruptcy Act was a travesty of justice.

To get real money immediately into the economy we need Medicare for All. Medicare for All would help re-capitalize business (especially manufacturing), school districts, state and local government, individual payers and the under and uninsured. The states could use any excess of savings for unemployment and pension funds. Overall this could save hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs while putting money quickly and directly into the system in the most efficient, fairest way ... taking care of people's medical bills.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One disagreement, one addition Posted by: photon's feather
» Home ownership Posted by: Cathyc
"FRD" is Not who comes to mind when I think of Obama...
Posted by: ~Fiona~ on Nov 7, 2008 3:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Strange as it may sound, "Abraham Lincoln" comes to mind when I think of Barak... I can't say why I feel this way, but that's who I think of and have thought of for a long while now...
**shruggs**

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It think its because... Posted by: ~Fiona~
» RE: It think its because... Posted by: 2thepoint
» **more shruggs** Posted by: ~Fiona~
» RE: **more shruggs** Posted by: 2thepoint
» **grins** Posted by: ~Fiona~
» RE: **grins** Posted by: 2thepoint
He Can't be FDR.....
Posted by: 2thepoint on Nov 7, 2008 3:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because we aren't in that situation. He can and I'm sure he will be his own man. Years from now will someone say can "he" and an Obama? One way he can really leave his mark other than the first black president.

What he can do aside from all the standards of fixing the economy, foreign policy etc..etc.. is hopefully place republicans in his administration, making obsolete the GOP and hastening it's demise.

Then the democrats as the sole "party" will devour itself, as the normally do every 8 or so years, and we will have a true democracy run by the best people, not the party people.

What a novel idea!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Franklin Delano Roobama
Posted by: Tom Degan on Nov 7, 2008 4:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there is one thing that's certain it is this: No president since Franklin D. Roosevelt entered office on March 4, 1933 has inerited a bigger Republican-generated mess than President Obama....

...."President Obama"....Someone pinch me, I must be dreaming....

The man has, from the very beginning, surrounded himself with the best and the brightest. Can you imagine what would have ensued had McCain abd Gidget von Braun won this thing?

SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY PHIL GRAMM???

I get the dry heaves just thinking about it.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Franklin Delano Roobama Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Franklin Delano Roobama Posted by: Longdream
Obama- Appointing Federal Reserve Bank Elite to Treasury Head
Posted by: 911FalseFlag on Nov 7, 2008 4:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Based upon the individuals who he is considering to appoint to head the Treasury Department,Obama will continue a policy of allowing the Federal Reserve Bank to dictate economic policy and continue to scam people in this country out of trillions of dollars.
The following is a short excerpt from an article posted on my website:
All of the leading candidates for the position of Treasury Secretary under president elect Barack Obama directly represent the old guard of the corporate elite system that has used the American economy as it’s engine to drive their march toward a global empire for decades.

Under the banner of “change” whichever of [2] these candidates is appointed to the Treasury will continue to rapidly expand the empowerment of the Federal Reserve monetary system and institute the very policies that have led us to the brink of financial ruin to move the economies of the world toward a centralized global banking system.

The Leading candidate for Obama’s Treasury Secretary is current Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York [3] Tim Geithner.
go to www.911insidejob.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama won't be FDR
Posted by: robchapman on Nov 7, 2008 4:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FDR lived in a time of mass movements and totalitarianism.

People were willing to accept great levels of government control and believed that they could cure their ills through adherence to rigidly defined idealologies.

We do not live among such people. Our political culture is much more fragmented.

I expect that President Obama will "let a thousand blossom bloom," and seek the solutions to our difficulties by empowering people at lower levels of government to take charge and help themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hmmn, I just read an article... Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: One definition of Faith Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Obama won't be FDR Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: Huh? Posted by: Longdream
For some reason, there seems to be a need to somehow put Obama in a box of some kind...
Posted by: ~Fiona~ on Nov 7, 2008 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For example, he's often described as "the first black president" and now possibly being like FDR...

I have to confess, I had a very strong reaction when he was elected, I cryed each time I saw the emotionality of other people and couldn't seem to control it. In speaking with other friends from other countrys, their reactions were pretty much the same...

Perhaps it is important to try to explain this almost universal reaction to this election, or this man, but I'm not sure it can be put into a simple little box that can define whatever it is that has happened as result of the election for our 44th president...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not another New Deal but a NEW PERSPECTIVE
Posted by: Last Chance on Nov 7, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the 1930s Roosevelt didn't face the threat of an ecocidal collapse of the global environment from massive overpopulation and industrial pollution. In the 1930s Roosevelt didn't face the threat of a WW3 holocaust from the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In the 1930s Roosevelt didn't face the invasion of millions of illegal aliens from exploding Latin American populations. In the 1930s the previous President Hoover had not entangled America in two financially and morally ruinous foreign wars. The list of differences goes on and on. The only similarity today is the obvious one of a worsening financial collapse, for which some of the solutions are similar, likw creating jobs and extending social services. Other than that, I think comparisons between the Roosevelt and Obama Administrations are a waste of intellect.

Instead, let's start a list of things that must be done over the next 4-8 years or else we will fall into social chaos, WW3, global ecocide and extinction.

1. Create a green economy for millions of jobs to replace the industrial monster that is polluting the World and sickening the population.

2. Reduce the human population that foments political, social and economic chaos around the World.

3. Shrink the global economy that is pushing industrial sprawl into the remaining wilderness areas and poisoning the planetary biosphere that nobody can live without.

4. Create a cooperative economy to replace the corporate horror show that now threatens our very existence.

I notice very few people anywhere are taking any of this seriously. All the economists and politicians who get to speak on national television say we should "grow the economy" as though that would solve all their problems. In fact that is the SOURCE of their problems. But they are addicted to short term gains to ignore long term consequences -- profit forever and tomorrow will take care of itself, thus avoiding the consequence of their own extinction. That's insane.

So, just how SANE will the Obama Administration be? Will it face and deal with the reality of our human predicament? I hope so, because our children and grandchildren depend on our rational behavior for their survival.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You Are NOT Chomsky!!! Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: You Are NOT Chomsky!!! Posted by: chomsky
What I keep saying!
Posted by: wdarling on Nov 7, 2008 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I listened to an interview with Mr. Kuttner last night and fell in instant love, so to speak. I'm in my early 30s but have always had a fascination with all things FDR, WPA, etc., and share his conviction that government investment and public attitudes in line with the 30s and 40s would solve a lot of this country's entrenched problems. It's not nostalgia, it's looking at economics and looking at the practical steps needed to turn an economy back onto solid footing. Hurray for sensible solutions based on tried and true methods, instead of crass attempts to throw money at problems and hope something sticks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In theory, yes. In reality, highly unlikely.
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 7, 2008 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two things:

1. He's gonna have to climb several mountains up the system before he can come anywhere close.

2. With his cabinet pick underway and not looking good, I don't even want to say the rest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More likely, he'll be Bill Clinton
Posted by: Krotos on Nov 7, 2008 7:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . .which would obviously be a huge improvement over the past eight years. But the election of Obama alone isn't going to bring about some great progressive renaissance. That depends on us: our willingness to work for changes in our own communities, and our willingness to prod, criticize, or even fiercely oppose Obama when necessary.

Don't ever forget: he's a politician, not a messiah.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: He's BARACK OBAMA. Posted by: Longdream
Inaugural Poem "We Must Change"
Posted by: thinkverybig on Nov 7, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is my goal to get in touch with someone from the Obama campaign and share with them my desire to be a part of his inauguration by reciting a poem I wrote called “We Must Change,” and I kindly ask for your help in doing so.
Go to youtube and do a search for "thinkverybig" and watch all of those videos. The one called "We Must Change" would be fitting to recite at Obama's Inauguration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM58nqX1ehE

Here are the words! http://www.thinkverybig.com/We%20Must%20Change.htm

“Makes Me Wanna Cry” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD0iAQN7VPY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bad Seed Children
Posted by: greenPuker on Nov 7, 2008 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For almost eight years, somebody else's bad-seed children have run the political sandbox by black armband tactics.. You looked on in horror as they bullied by fists, smashed the playground, and even managed to throw sand in their own eyes. You email yelled at them (though they were heedless), and wondered where in the world their misbegotten parents had gone. Who in the world had raised these morally debased children. It was hard to dream and hope for a change with this much evil loose in the world.

Maybe the best thing about the election of Barack Obama is that two and a half months from now, those mad children will be gone. No, the damage they did is not irreparable. It will take time, but the excretory filth and damage these children have left WILL be cleaned, repaired and forgotten. We "elitist liberals" always revive our dreams of the good and possible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bad Seed Children Posted by: cef
He ain't no FDR
Posted by: PakiBoy on Nov 7, 2008 10:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua Frank talks about Obama's administration on Counterpunch:

Rahm Emanuel:
"Emanuel is a shameless neoliberal with close ties to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), even co-authoring a strategy book with DLC president Bruce Reed. Without Emanuel, Bill Clinton would not have been able to thrust NAFTA down the throats of environmentalists and labor in the mid-1990s. Over the course of his career, Emanuel’s made it a point to cozy up to big business, making him one of the most effective corporate fundraisers in the Democratic Party. He’s also a staunch advocate of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories."

In other words, no change...

Frank continues:
Emanuel’s shinning moment came in 2006 as he helped funnel money and poured ground support into the offices of dozens of conservative Democrats, expanding his party’s control of the House of Representatives. Emanuel, who supports the War on Terror, and expanding our presence in Afghanistan, worked hard to ensure that a Democratic House majority would not alter the course of US military objectives in the Middle East.

In short, Rahm Emanuel is not only a poor choice for Obama’s Chief of Staff; he’s one of the least progressive picks he could have made. While he may have decent views on abortion, tax policy, and social security, Emanuel’s broader vision is more of the same: war and corporate dominance.


Volker, Obama's potential pick for Secretaryof Treasury, Frank writes:
“[Volker] engineered a draconian shift in U.S. monetary policy. The long-standing commitment in the U.S. liberal democratic state to the principles of the New Deal, which meant broadly Keynesian fiscal and monetary policies with full employment as a key objective, was abandoned in favour of a policy designed to quell inflation no matter what the consequences might be for employment. The real rate of interest, which had often been negative during the double-digit inflationary surge of the 1970s, was rendered positive by fiat of the Federal Reserve. The nominal rate of interest was raised overnight … Thus began ‘a long deep recession that would empty factories and break unions in the U.S. and drive detour countries to the brink of insolvency, beginning a long-era of structural insolvency’. The Volker shock, as it has since come to be known, has to be interpreted as a necessary but not sufficient condition of neoliberalism.”

In supporting Henry Paulson’s bailout package, Volker would not re-regulate the banks nor provide more power to shareholders, he’s simply carry on one facet of neoliberalism: tightening federal budgets which inevitably will put great budgetary pressure on federal agencies.



The other potential choice is Robert effing Rubin. Rubin's claim to fame is that he played a central role in dismantling Glass-Steagall Act in concert with Phil Graham, Greenspan et al.

In other words, don't expect any change...

I voted for Obama, regretablly. I should have listened to my conscience!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FDR Wasn't FDR
Posted by: Blueprelude on Nov 7, 2008 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Franklin D. Roosevelt only became the New Deal president we know from history because a desperate American public forced him to be. His own 1932 campaign revealed him as s fiscal conservative. Since this was a time when Communism was becoming more popular with larger numbers of people, Roosevelt had to go a different direction than the plutocracy-friendly presidents of the past.

Likewise, Obama will have to be pressured if Americans truly want a government responsive to the people. Otherwise, he will just serve the corporations and financial houses like every president has starting with Reagan. After all, Obama's biggest campaign contributor was Goldman Sachs. If we want him to be our president and not that of Goldman Sachs, we have to knock on his door en masse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly! Posted by: fanny666
» RE: FDR Wasn't FDR Posted by: Livemike
Rachel Maddow: Are we looking at Bill Clinton's third term?
Posted by: Mystery Solver on Nov 7, 2008 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"MSNBC's Rachel Maddow was particularly concerned on Thursday with Obama's selection of Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who worked in the Clinton White House, as his own White House chief of staff. She noted, "The Emanuel pick has also caused some confusion among those who thought change wasn't just a break with the Bush administration but also with the politics of the last 16 years."

Well, if ultra left-wing Rachel Maddow has concerns with Obama's questionable pick then perhaps you should start raising eybrows at Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Rachel Maddow... Posted by: Longdream
not if he appoints men like Emanuel!
Posted by: brianct on Nov 7, 2008 8:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On Smart Obamas dumb choice:

'Chief of Staff

Obama’s key White House position will go to Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois. While Emanuel knows his way around the corridors of Washington, qualifying him in the traditional sense, this alone doesn’t mean he’s the guy you want drawing up Obama’s policy papers day after day.

For starters, Emanuel is a shameless neoliberal with close ties to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), even co-authoring a strategy book with DLC president Bruce Reed. Without Emanuel, Bill Clinton would not have been able to thrust NAFTA down the throats of environmentalists and labor in the mid-1990s. Over the course of his career, Emanuel’s made it a point to cozy up to big business, making him one of the most effective corporate fundraisers in the Democratic Party. He’s also a staunch advocate of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.

Emanuel’s shinning moment came in 2006 as he helped funnel money and poured ground support into the offices of dozens of conservative Democrats, expanding his party’s control of the House of Representatives. Emanuel, who supports the War on Terror, and expanding our presence in Afghanistan, worked hard to ensure that a Democratic House majority would not alter the course of US military objectives in the Middle East.

In short, Rahm Emanuel is not only a poor choice for Obama’s Chief of Staff; he’s one of the least progressive picks he could have made. While he may have decent views on abortion, tax policy, and social security, Emanuel’s broader vision is more of the same: war and corporate dominance.'
Emanuel a poor choice

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CHECK OUT HIS CABINET APPPOINTMENTS
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Nov 8, 2008 3:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THIS MAN IS ANOTHER MUSSOLINI FASCIST... FUCK THE REPUBLICRATS. THEY ARE CONTROLLED BY THE ENEMIES OF HUMANITY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well let's see...
Posted by: Livemike on Nov 9, 2008 1:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's a Democrat so ignorant of economics that he doesn't know what the broken window fallacy is and therefore thinks the expenses of climate policy are revenues. So far much like FDR. He is ostensibily leftist but in the pay of the biggest moneybags around, two for two so far. He's inheriting the financial mess of an incredibliy incompetent and power-hungry Republican president that is being blamed for being too laissev-faire, in face of evidence that would make a creationalist throw in the towel. Three nil. He proposes spending his way out of a problem that you spent your way into and will be an economic disaster (although probably no bigger than McCain would have been). Four for four. And he's pretty much contemptous of the power of the supreme court to limit the president's power over economic issues FIVE STARS! Yes he CAN be FDR, you poor suckers.

Enjoy the extra decade of impoverishment just like you did under that dunderhead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A Question Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: A Question Posted by: chomsky
» RE: A Question Posted by: Livemike
» RE: A Question Posted by: Livemike
The last thing the economy needs is a new FDR
Posted by: GlennCraven on Nov 11, 2008 5:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The entire world experienced a depression during the 1930s, but it's been said that only the United States had FDR to make it "great."

Just a few years ago, two UCLA economists, Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian, published a study that suggests Roosevelt's New Deal policies caused the Great Depression to last seven years longer than it should have in the United States. By their analysis, the depression would have ended in 1936 had Roosevelt not artificially controlled prices and wages. By their calculations, while wages were 25 percent higher under Roosevelt than they would have been, prices were also 23 percent higher (there goes your wage hike), unemployment was 25 percent higher, and the Gross National Product was 27 percent lower.

Said Cole: "The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes. Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

Read the summary here.

The fact that our recent economic collapse was precipitated largely by gross mismanagement of two pseudo-governmental agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is reason enough to question whether further government intervention is really the right way to get the economy rolling again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]