Is there any good book that refutes the New Deal? I can't find any

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I've been reading up on the New Deal, at the behest of some libertarian comprades. Apparently I am to churn up Friedman's claim that the New Deal was a resounding failure, other than establishing basic monetary policy. However, after reading FDR's Folly and the Roosevelt Myth, I'm not convinced by this pro-capitalist bullshit. The texts are horrible.

Let's look at the book Milton Friedman supported: FDR's Folly by Powell.

"General Motors car production plunged from 50,000 in December, 1935 fo 125 during the first week of February, 1936." Does anyone else see a problem with this statement? The author is comparing the production of one week versus the production of one month. :laugh:

"Unemployment remained high." This is only partially true. The unemployment numbers were remaining high because a lot of Americans were working for the government. The unemployment rates didn't count these Americans; which is why you see a dramatic dip in unemployment right up until World War I. Men and women were leaving their government jobs and going to the private sector to produce goods.

"Each dollar taxed meant a working person had a dollar less to spend on his or her own." At the time the income tax wasn't used for regular employees. It was used against employers.

Looks like the New Deal was mostly a success to me.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

My grandparents told me it was better under FDR, but nothing really got moving until we were attacked.

That said, of course many projects were undertaken. But compared to the war effort, it wasn't going to build an economy like that. At least, in my opinion.

[Robert]

"General Motors car production plunged from 50,000 in December, 1935 fo 125 during the first week of February, 1936." Does anyone else see a problem with this statement? The author is comparing the production of one week versus the production of one month. :laugh:

Yeah, that's a real knee slapper.

If the above is accurate, one can reasonably extrapolate that average weekly car production went from at least 10,000 in the last week of December '35 (apple 1) to 125 in the first week of January '36 (apple 2). Halve the numbers from the last week of December and triple them for the first week of January, if you like, and that's still a sharp weekly decline.

Not that it matters.

The New Deal was probably more beneficial than not, but it's impossible to know for certain, a matter of opinion and values in the first place, and amusing to hear its proponents, as well as its detractors, claim the contrary with such certitude.

[Labor Shall Rule]

My grandparents told me it was better under FDR, but nothing really got moving until we were attacked.

That said, of course many projects were undertaken. But compared to the war effort, it wasn't going to build an economy like that. At least, in my opinion.

No, you're right.

The Keynesian experience proves that heavy state investment and growth policies have typically favored 'stability' more than the low interest rates and low inflation that has come with this tumultuous period of neo-liberal capitalism.

The malignant problem of that is that it was entirely based on arms spending - it deprived other sectors of capital the vital investment that was required to win against the mounting Japanese and west German competitors, leading to the thirst to reduce and cut-up our expensive manufacturing base that had such a low rate of return.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm constantly amazed at how right Keynes was, relative to his detractors on the far right.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Maybe you should renounce your radicalism and become a Keynesian, then. :closedeyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm constantly amazed at how right Keynes was, relative to his detractors on the far right.

Gene, you should look up one Michal Kalecki, a Marxist economist who arrived at similar (but not the same) conclusions BEFORE Keynes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha%C5%82_Kalecki

[Too bad he's underrated, because Keynes is overrated. :( ]

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Maybe you should renounce your radicalism and become a Keynesian, then. :closedeyes:

You realize as far as contemporary economic policies go you can be both a socialist and Keynesian, right?

[Os Cangaceiros]

You realize as far as contemporary economic policies go you can be both a socialist and Keynesian, right?

I didn't know that.

I did know that Keynes spoke of Marx in less than endearing terms, though. I can't remember the exact terms he used, but it was something about Marxism being childish.

How could you be a Keynesian and disagree with the idea of a state?

[Die Neue Zeit]

You realize as far as contemporary economic policies go you can be both a socialist and Keynesian, right?

No you can't. You can, however, be a socialist and a Kalecki-ian, though. :)

[Self-Owner]

You realize as far as contemporary economic policies go you can be both a socialist and Keynesian, right?

I'm very curious how you can be both an anarchist and Keyensian though. Without a coercive redistributive state, how does 'demand management' get off the ground?

[IcarusAngel]

I didn't know that.

Don't Agorists teach that people deserve some kind of retribution or reparation for past grievances?

By that standard, all capitalists owe to the workers the profits they stole from them, so, if anything, taxes are too low.


How could you be a Keynesian and disagree with the idea of a state?

Our economic system is capitalism. I see no reason why capitalism shouldn't be made at least somewhat tolerable, particularly by combining it with some social democracy theories, which, by leftist standards, would actually be a reduction of the state, making it far more transparent, open, and free.

Capitalists are criminals, they are responsible for the crimes in society, and deserve neither respect, or even life. They are criminals of the worst order - perhaps even making the Nazis blush. At least Nazis had a preservation of certain humans as its basis, whereas capitalism has none at all.

[IcarusAngel]

I'm very curious how you can be both an anarchist and Keyensian though.

I'm even more curious as to how people can claim to be a capitalist and an anarchist at the same time, such as anarcho-capitalists. It's like saying "anarcho-tyranny."

People, especially right-wingers, come up with the most boneheaded theories sometimes.


Without a coercive redistributive state, how does 'demand management' get off the ground?

Keynesian economics is somewhat the equivalent of the peasants demanding that the King divide up the land evenly instead of parsing it out to the rich feudalists in old, monarchistic England, although somewhat less extreme than what they were advocating.

The difference is that the social anarchists have as a goal a non-statist system, who knows what the peasants ultimately wanted.

[RGacky3]

Keynesian economcis works in the sense that it keeps Capitalism afloat, kind of the same way economic fascism does, that being said Keynesian economics in social-democratic form can't be sustained very long, or at least its very hard to sustain it.

The New deal was a success in saving capitalism, if it was'nt for it, we might have had a social revolution in the US.

[IcarusAngel]

The New deal was a success in saving capitalism, if it was'nt for it, we might have had a social revolution in the US.


Or maybe the US would have been more like Germany after an economic hardship and morphed into a Fascist country, with a type of Fascism that makes the Reagan administration look tame by comparison.

http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/RESOURCE/MEDIA/IMAGES/bookcovers/Original/BookCovers13/978/0/4/5/1/9780451529299.jpg

[Os Cangaceiros]

Don't Agorists teach that people deserve some kind of retribution or reparation for past grievances?

By that standard, all capitalists owe to the workers the profits they stole from them, so, if anything, taxes are too low.

I'm not sure what Agorists teach, as I'm only vaguely familiar with the theory in general. I'm not an agorist, although I can see how my screen name may confuse you.


Our economic system is capitalism. I see no reason why capitalism shouldn't be made at least somewhat tolerable, particularly by combining it with some social democracy theories, which, by leftist standards, would actually be a reduction of the state, making it far more transparent, open, and free.

This sounds like Chomsky's theory to me. I don't support it, and I'm not entirely sure how a social democracy could ever provide a lead in to any serious type of radicalism.


Capitalists are criminals, they are responsible for the crimes in society, and deserve neither respect, or even life. They are criminals of the worst order - perhaps even making the Nazis blush. At least Nazis had a preservation of certain humans as its basis, whereas capitalism has none at all.

Nonsense. Capitalists (or the bourgeoisie, depending on how you want to phrase it) are just participants in a game that is far bigger than even them. There is no reason why we should kill all capitalists.

And not to nitpick or anything, but of course capitalism requires the preservation of certain humans as it's basis...they're known as "workers".

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm very curious how you can be both an anarchist and Keyensian though. Without a coercive redistributive state, how does 'demand management' get off the ground?

Huh? I'm talking about in the short-term. Keynes proved himself right; Mises and Friedman were mostly wrong. Perhaps they should have put more thought into a relatively honest theory of subjective value before objectifying money.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, my impression was that after the Great Depression, most of the neoclassical economists of the time were baffled. "How could this happen," they said, "How could capitalism fail?" Then one John Maynard Keynes came along and said, "Hey, I think I know why capitalism failed, and this is how we can fix it." (Including switching from a micro to macroeconomic approach and subsequent switch away from the individual as primary economic actor, more state control and regulation, et cetera).

And whether this is how capitalism should be run or not is still being debated to this day, though it seems that Keynesianism has fallen a bit out of favor within the last couple of decades.

In any case, I don't see how any of ^that^ benefits me, as a libertarian socialist.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

In any case, I don't see how any of ^that^ benefits me, as a libertarian socialist.

Not being dead?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I owe my life to John Maynard Keynes? :confused:

[RGacky3]

This sounds like Chomsky's theory to me. I don't support it, and I'm not entirely sure how a social democracy could ever provide a lead in to any serious type of radicalism.

Social democracy is more like a short term solution, pragmatic. I can see why you'd support it, not because you'd get any closer to radicalism, but because it would be nice to have free health care :p.


Nonsense. Capitalists (or the bourgeoisie, depending on how you want to phrase it) are just participants in a game that is far bigger than even them. There is no reason why we should kill all capitalists.

I completely agree, we are fighting a system, not people.


And whether this is how capitalism should be run or not is still being debated to this day, though it seems that Keynesianism has fallen a bit out of favor within the last couple of decades.

In any case, I don't see how any of ^that^ benefits me, as a libertarian socialist.

It benefits you, because it kind of shows that Capitalism can't really be softened effectively.

Thats what radical leftists have been saying for years, you cant reform Capitalism.

[IcarusAngel]

I'll pretend I didn't hear the "capitalists look out for the workers" comment, an argument even less well founded than "slave owners looked out for their slaves" argument - because with slaves, you owned them, you didn't just merely "rent them."

I'm confused by you two RGacky3 and especially Agora, a self-described Libertarian-Socialist (as is Chomsky, btw., as was Bertrand Russell).

You don't support social democratic reforms apparently, seeing them as useless and not a step to radicalism.

Obviously, you don't favor Libertarian, right-wing reforms to minimize the state either, as that is the kind of tyranny socialists oppose.

So apparently you're indifferent to the type of reforms a capitalist state will make, then? What in the world for?

And how are you going to achieve "radicalism" by ignoring the current system. Makes absolutely no sense.

Btw... Keynes didn't like capitalism much, either: "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all."

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'll pretend I didn't hear the "capitalists look out for the workers" comment, an argument even less well founded than "slave owners looked out for their slaves" argument - because with slaves, you owned them, you didn't just merely "rent them."

This is a very reductionist and simplistic viewpoint.

Of course capitalists "look out for the workers". They can't continue to gain profits without them. In fact, many businesses realized that they were caught in a kind of Prisoner's Dilemma in regard to the treatment of their workers near the dawn of the 20th century, which lead to a good deal of reformism. For instance, the often cited example of the Meat Inspection Act...it was brought through largely because meat packers wanted it to go through. The reality is that the overall picture is far, far more complex than "evil business vs. good government". Business has often used government to provide protection against those with malicious intent towards them, and that includes staving off serious upheaval with reform.


I'm confused by you two RGacky3 and especially Agora, a self-described Libertarian-Socialist (as is Chomsky, btw., as was Bertrand Russell).

You don't support social democratic reforms apparently, seeing them as useless and not a step to radicalism.

Not only not a step towards radicalism; a step backwards from radicalism.


Obviously, you don't favor Libertarian, right-wing reforms to minimize the state either, as that is the kind of tyranny socialists oppose.

Yes, obviously.


So apparently you're indifferent to the type of reforms a capitalist state will make, then? What in the world for?

I'm not exactly sure how you reached this conclusion, based on what I said...


And how are you going to achieve "radicalism" by ignoring the current system. Makes absolutely no sense.

I'm not "ignoring the current system", I simply don't think that making capitalism more "palatable" is progressive. I don't ignore the fact that welfarist policies has made life much more bearable for many people, but in the long run they really don't help us, in my opinion.


Btw... Keynes didn't like capitalism much, either: "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all."

I'm familiar with that quote.

[Rascolnikova]

"General Motors car production plunged from 50,000 in December, 1935 fo 125 during the first week of February, 1936." Does anyone else see a problem with this statement? The author is comparing the production of one week versus the production of one month. :laugh:


No. It's a little odd, but not out of line to assume one's readership can multiply.

I wonder--anyone know of any trained historians on revleft? I'm sure there are some sort of standards in the field about what forms legitimate analysis, that would be germane here?

[Self-Owner]

Huh? I'm talking about in the short-term. Keynes proved himself right; Mises and Friedman were mostly wrong. Perhaps they should have put more thought into a relatively honest theory of subjective value before objectifying money.


I don't really see what you're getting at. I can understand why Friedman hasn't come off too well recently, but it seems to me at least that Mises is right on the money. It's no coincidence that the Austrians are virtually the only ones to have predicted this whole mess.

Anyway, I'd love to hear why you think Mises' theory of value is dishonest, and why you think he 'objectifies' money.

[RGacky3]

IcarusAngel,

Let me put it too you this way, I am not against social-democratic reforms, I am for them, but I don't see them as a cure, just a pain killer, they arn't solutions, but they help, I'd love to have free healthcare.

Also in a way the Capitalists DO look out for the workers, slave owners looked out for their slaves, because its money in their pocket, I take care of my tools too.

But social democracy is not the solution, I think you can get the same results from syndicalism, (on a smaller scale), health care, higher wages, more security, and still keep moving toward radicalism, because its the workers relying on each other rather than the government.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

No. It's a little odd, but not out of line to assume one's readership can multiply.


You have a strange way of approaching numbers. Simply multiplying the weekly total does nothing. For all we know December's first week was exactly the same. I also find it suspect that we're comparing a Christmas month to a post-New Years month. In mathematics this type of comparison is invalid. The author, had he been intellectually honest, would have compared two Decembers.

Shit like this shouldn't be published.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It's no coincidence that the Austrians are virtually the only ones to have predicted this whole mess.

No, they were not. You need to get out more often. People were calling this situation a dud for a long time, even whilst hammered. Marxists, Neo-Keynesians, Chicago monetarists - let's not try to grant the Austrian school any special title. They were pointing to the obvious.


Anyway, I'd love to hear why you think Mises' theory of value is dishonest, and why you think he 'objectifies' money.It depends on what you want to take from Mises. Austrian schoolers like to trumpet a horn for what it is already common sense; the financial crises being a recent example. Circa 1810s everyone knew that artificial monetary expansion could be bad, including Keynes; however, what is "artificial" rests on the individual's own thoughts. Fractional reserve banking is identified as one main culprit, and that exists independent of the state (Rothbard thought it wouldn't exist in a free market, providing no evidence whatsoever - in the tradition of the Austrian school - while Hayek and Mises were more cautious).

The assumption of the Austrian school is that there is some objective amount of wealth that exists in the world and any deviation from that number is bad in terms of speculation. I find that utterly amusing coming from a school of economists who try to disavow the relationship between the labor theory of value and marginalist value. In the large scheme of things, markets will always suffer from a diverse relationship between what money exists and what the market can properly handle. This is not an Austrian school creation. Many economists prior to Mises realized the implications; Marx, for example, talked of fictitious capital contributing to the crises of capital, pointing to the banks as one of the main contributors.

The Austrian school in general builds itself off of Marx's criticisms, but then turns around and makes empty statements about what should happen. Mises was wrong in many accounts. Firstly he assumed all socialism would exist as a Soviet incarnation, blowing off libertarian socialism and market socialism. Secondly he made general assumptions about the introduction of Keynesiam - at least its quasi-implementation. What Nixon called "Keynesian" was just spending wildly.

[Rascolnikova]

You have a strange way of approaching numbers. Simply multiplying the weekly total does nothing. For all we know December's first week was exactly the same. I also find it suspect that we're comparing a Christmas month to a post-New Years month. In mathematics this type of comparison is invalid. The author, had he been intellectually honest, would have compared two Decembers.

Shit like this shouldn't be published.


Certainly in pure mathematics one can't assume these kinds of things, but if I'm not mistaken, in the softer "sciences" it's done all the time--that's why I asked about what's considered legitimate analysis and what is not. You don't always have the kind of data samples you need; maybe the standard of record keeping changed between that December and that January. Maybe the change is being pointed out because it is proportionately greater or less than the usual change from December to January in that period. Extrapolating from imperfect data isn't a cardinal sin as long as it's a supporting detail, not a centerpiece of your case.

Sure, it smells funny, but just seeing the statement out of context, I'd have to hope that readers are informed enough to understand what it does and doesn't mean.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I just found out that the first two countries to come out of the Depression were Sweden and Germany - both were the only ones who utilized Keynesian policies before 1936. That's pretty damning against market theocrats.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have heard that Bernanke stated that the [cursory] cause of the Depression was the increase in interest rates by the central bank (yeah, nice recessionary move :rolleyes: ). :blushing: