Why all those Great Depression analogies are wrong.
slate.com
slate.com
Safety nets do not prevent crises; they delay and concentrate them. People take safety nets into account -- if we knew, for example, that the government wouldn't let stocks drop more than 20% without bailing us all out, we'd all leverage our portfolios four to one (not strictly legal, but you can do it fairly easily with derivatives). This would make the 20%-drop insurance plan far too expensive, and make stocks so overpriced that such a drop would be inevitable. GSEs, deposit insurance, social security, and unemployment insurance all have similar moral hazard issues.
The effective insurance plans are not the ones that reduce risk (assuming behavior is the same). They are the ones that reduce actual risk relative to apparent risk -- which means they could be the rules that increase risk. Unfortunately, "Effective, but superficially harmful" is a perfect description of a policy that will never be enacted by a democratically elected government, so we're stuck with what we have.
Just remember that the people who produce financial porn, and who get paid to describe the deals and the play by play are not in the business of telling you the truth; they are in the business of selling ads for financial services.
The same can be applied to the economy. We aren't likely to repeat the mistakes that led to the Great Depression. Instead we find new and interesting ways to screw up. I doubt that this will be anywhere near as bad as the Great Depression. However, the claim that this time is different shouldn't be as reassuring as it sounds. We simply can't evaluate this depression(or recession if you prefer) in terms of the last. Its apples and oranges.
Guess which President was the first to decide that a program of massive aid, make-work, and bailouts would be the best way to end a recession (hint: his initials were not FDR). Guess which recession was the first to which the US responded with such policies! Guess which recession was longer and more severe than any before it!
As to whether he did a good job or not, the fact that he was reelected three times seems to indicate that he didn't do too badly.
1972. 2004. Do you have actual political beliefs, or do you just assume that the average voter defines the morally correct view? Since the FDR who ran for office in 1932 has basically nothing to do with the FDR who rant the country thereafter, you have a lot of 'splainin to do. Somehow, the voters were right to 1) vote for the guy who promised to reverse Hoover's policies, and 2) vote for the guy who then changed his mind and continued them. Meanwhile, FDR was right to 1) do exactly what Hoover didn't, and then 2) do exactly what Hoover did.
I don't think there's even a name for beliefs this ludicrous.
Why on Earth do you think I would need to rationalize supporting everything president Roosevelt did? I wasn't even born then.
Do you have actual political beliefs, or do you just assume that the average voter defines the morally correct view?
I don't particularly care about the "morally correct" view, I do assume however that voters have some sense of their own well being, and if they feel things are getting worse they will more likely vote for change. That's why democracy works.
I do assume however that voters have some sense of their own well being, and if they feel things are getting worse they will more likely vote for change.
Why would you trust voters to elect the right person? Do you really think that the people in office are the best for the job, rather than the best at manipulating others into giving them the job?
That's why democracy works.
Democracy sucks. Name one company that would would be better managed as a democracy than as a shareholder-oligarchy. Can you seriously imagine a company that had a monopoly on taxing all of the wealth produced in the United States, and still managed to operate at a $500 billion annual loss? Be serious.
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prol...
Then again, Joe Biden thought that FDR gave a presidential address by TV in 29 to reassure the country.