Franklin D. Roosevelt & The "Permanently Safe Order of Things"

[Burning Giraffe]

By Steven Brodie Tucker. May 9th, 2009.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, on September 23, 1932 gave a speech that laid out the future of the Democratic Party's philosophy on the role of government in the economy and in the lives of the American People. He begins by discussing the American Industrial Revolution, remembering that, "The dream was the dream of an economic machine, able to raise the standard of living for everyone; to bring luxury within the reach of the humblest; to annihilate distance by steam power and later by electricity, and to release everyone from the drudgery of the heaviest manual toil". This dream was a dream of national passion and enthusiasm, so much so that we did not pay too much attention to the means, so far as we achieved our ends. So long as the railroads were built, we did not complain too much how they were built, how the railroad companies acquired their land, how the workers were treated, or even how the laws applied.

"So manifest", Roosevelt trumpeted, "were the advantages of the machine age, however, that the United States fearlessly, cheerfully, and I think, rightly, accepted the bitter with the sweet". Yet, eventually the expansion could only go so far before all that free land had become private property and powerful companies began closing in on monopoly, and the hopes of the average man were no longer in discovering the American Dream, but rather in laboring for those who already had. While we were not a nation that had historically desired too great a relationship with our Government, these Business concerns commonly petitioned the government for aid.

Roosevelt reminds us that, "The railroads were subsidized, sometimes by grants of money, oftener by grants of land; some of the most valuable oil lands in the United States were granted to assist the financing of the railroad which pushed through the Southwest. A nascent merchant marine was assisted by grants of money, or by mail subsidies, so that our steam shipping might ply the seven seas". And so, the US Government paved the way for American Business to prosper, in the hopes of establishing a better life and living for all Americans. In Roosevelt's mind, this hope was exhausted at the end of the Industrial Revolution when after receiving all this help and grace and charity from Government, these Corporations did not spread the wealth. Roosevelt lamented, "More striking still, it appeared that if the process of concentration goes on at the same rate, at the end of another century we shall have all American industry controlled by a dozen corporations, and run by perhaps a hundred men. Put plainly, we are steering a steady course toward economic oligarchy, if we are not there already".

The question remains, then, what must the government do?

"Clearly", Roosevelt opined, "all this calls for a re-appraisal of values. A mere builder of more industrial plants, a creator of more railroad systems, an organizer of more corporations, is as likely to be a danger as a help. The day of the great promoter or the the financial Titan, to whom we granted anything if only he would build, or develop, is over. Our task now is not discovery or exploitation of natural resources, or necessarily producing more goods. It is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources and plants already in hand, of seeking to re-establish foreign markets for our surplus production, of meeting the problem of underconsumption, of adjusting production to consumption, of distributing wealth and products more equitably, of adapting existing economic organizations to the service of the people. The day of enlightened administration has come".

And Thus the pinnacle of American Liberalism was born. The argument was made that the governments' role in the United States economy was to change, to be an instrument for regulating production, redistributing wealth, and securing economic equity with the objective of better serving the people. Which people? The people who failed to rise to the top in that great Industrial Race for the American Dream. The people who now worked for the victors. The people who no longer had a frontier to conquer, or a steam engine to invest, or access to land and resources to live off of. The Government must evolve, to involve itself in the careful planning, regulating, and legislating of an equitable national economy.

"As I see it", Roosevelt laid out, "the task of Government in its relation to business is to assist the development of an economic declaration of rights, and an economic constitutional order. This is the common task of statesmen and businessman. It is the minimum requirement of a more permanently safe order of things...".

An so a "permanent revolution" was began in America. The American People were about to gain new Rights.

"Every man", proclaimed the President, "has a right to life; and this means that he has also a right to make a comfortable living. He may by sloth or crime decline to exercise that right; but it may not be denied him. We have no actual famine or dearth; our industrial and agricultural mechanism can produce enough and to spare. Our Government, formal and informal, political and economic, owes to everyone an avenue to possess himself of a portion of that plenty sufficient for his needs, through his own work". And of course there is the rub. The question that has faced the Democrat Party for generations. Can all Americans possess himself of a portion of that plenty sufficient for his needs through his own work? And in what ways can the government open an avenue for them to possess a portion of that plenty?

Roosevelt continued, "Every man has a right to his own property; which means a right to be assured, to the fullest extent attainable, in the safety of his savings. By no other means can men carry the burdens of those parts of life which, in the nature of things, afford no chance of labor; childhood, sickness, old age. In all thought of property, this right is paramount; all other property rights must yield to it. If, in accord with this principle, we must restrict the operations of the speculator, the manipulator, even the financier, I believe we must accept the restriction as needful, not to hamper individualism but to protect it".

This is a profound economic sentiment in stark contrast to the economic observances of Adam Smith. In Smiths' Theory of Moral Sentiments, (part 4, Chapter 1), he states, "The rich divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal proportions among all its inhabitants". President Roosevelt has a much different vision for the future of the American Economy. No longer shall we trust the prosperity of the poor to an invisible hand, or to the laws of nature, or even to the charity of the rich.

"This implication is, briefly, that the responsible heads of finance and industry, instead of acting each for himself, must work together to achieve the common end. They must, where necessary, sacrifice this or that private advantage; and in reciprocal self-denial must seek a general advantage. It is here that formal Government - political government, if you choose - comes in. Whenever in the pursuit of this objective the lone wolf, the un-ethical competitor, the reckless promoter, the Ishmael or Insull whose hand is against every man's, declines to join in achieving an end recognized as being for the public welfare, and threatens to drag industry back to a state of anarchy, the Government may properly be asked to apply restraint. Likewise, should the group ever use its collective power contrary to the public welfare, the Government must be swift to enter and protect the public interest".

That this new role of government would seem like a threat to capitalists and individualists did not go unnoticed by President Roosevelt. He concluded that all the rights, liberties, and protections would and ought to remain in place for the individual and that "every individual may attain such power as his ability permits, consistent with his assuming the accompanying responsibility". And so, the great economic debate began. The questions were laid out and the philosophies proscribed. And still today, the views of Roosevelt and Smith are compelled to combat each other in the public discourse, unresolved, but each gaining and losing popular support with each consecutive generation. Just as Aristotle and Plato, Empiricism and Rationalism, has waged an intellectual battle for over 2,000 years, Capitalism and Liberalism (for lack of a less offensive term) may well continue to engage each other for the years to come.

(Roosevelt Quotes from an Address by Franklin D. Roosevelt given at the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, September 23, 1932. Printed in American Government: Readings and Documents, by Peter H. Odegard, second edition. Published by Harper & Row, New York, Evanston, and London, 1964.)

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

By Steven Brodie Tucker. May 9th, 2009.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, on September 23, 1932 gave a speech that laid out the future of the Democratic Party's philosophy on the role of government in the economy and in the lives of the American People. He begins by discussing the American Industrial Revolution, remembering that, "The dream was the dream of an economic machine, able to raise the standard of living for everyone; to bring luxury within the reach of the humblest; to annihilate distance by steam power and later by electricity, and to release everyone from the drudgery of the heaviest manual toil". This dream was a dream of national passion and enthusiasm, so much so that we did not pay too much attention to the means, so far as we achieved our ends. So long as the railroads were built, we did not complain too much how they were built, how the railroad companies acquired their land, how the workers were treated, or even how the laws applied.

"So manifest", Roosevelt trumpeted, "were the advantages of the machine age, however, that the United States fearlessly, cheerfully, and I think, rightly, accepted the bitter with the sweet". Yet, eventually the expansion could only go so far before all that free land had become private property and powerful companies began closing in on monopoly, and the hopes of the average man were no longer in discovering the American Dream, but rather in laboring for those who already had. While we were not a nation that had historically desired too great a relationship with our Government, these Business concerns commonly petitioned the government for aid.

Roosevelt reminds us that, "The railroads were subsidized, sometimes by grants of money, oftener by grants of land; some of the most valuable oil lands in the United States were granted to assist the financing of the railroad which pushed through the Southwest. A nascent merchant marine was assisted by grants of money, or by mail subsidies, so that our steam shipping might ply the seven seas". And so, the US Government paved the way for American Business to prosper, in the hopes of establishing a better life and living for all Americans. In Roosevelt's mind, this hope was exhausted at the end of the Industrial Revolution when after receiving all this help and grace and charity from Government, these Corporations did not spread the wealth. Roosevelt lamented, "More striking still, it appeared that if the process of concentration goes on at the same rate, at the end of another century we shall have all American industry controlled by a dozen corporations, and run by perhaps a hundred men. Put plainly, we are steering a steady course toward economic oligarchy, if we are not there already".

The question remains, then, what must the government do?

"Clearly", Roosevelt opined, "all this calls for a re-appraisal of values. A mere builder of more industrial plants, a creator of more railroad systems, an organizer of more corporations, is as likely to be a danger as a help. The day of the great promoter or the the financial Titan, to whom we granted anything if only he would build, or develop, is over. Our task now is not discovery or exploitation of natural resources, or necessarily producing more goods. It is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources and plants already in hand, of seeking to re-establish foreign markets for our surplus production, of meeting the problem of underconsumption, of adjusting production to consumption, of distributing wealth and products more equitably, of adapting existing economic organizations to the service of the people. The day of enlightened administration has come".

And Thus the pinnacle of American Liberalism was born. The argument was made that the governments' role in the United States economy was to change, to be an instrument for regulating production, redistributing wealth, and securing economic equity with the objective of better serving the people. Which people? The people who failed to rise to the top in that great Industrial Race for the American Dream. The people who now worked for the victors. The people who no longer had a frontier to conquer, or a steam engine to invest, or access to land and resources to live off of. The Government must evolve, to involve itself in the careful planning, regulating, and legislating of an equitable national economy.

"As I see it", Roosevelt laid out, "the task of Government in its relation to business is to assist the development of an economic declaration of rights, and an economic constitutional order. This is the common task of statesmen and businessman. It is the minimum requirement of a more permanently safe order of things...".

An so a "permanent revolution" was began in America. The American People were about to gain new Rights.

"Every man", proclaimed the President, "has a right to life; and this means that he has also a right to make a comfortable living. He may by sloth or crime decline to exercise that right; but it may not be denied him. We have no actual famine or dearth; our industrial and agricultural mechanism can produce enough and to spare. Our Government, formal and informal, political and economic, owes to everyone an avenue to possess himself of a portion of that plenty sufficient for his needs, through his own work". And of course there is the rub. The question that has faced the Democrat Party for generations. Can all Americans possess himself of a portion of that plenty sufficient for his needs through his own work? And in what ways can the government open an avenue for them to possess a portion of that plenty?

Roosevelt continued, "Every man has a right to his own property; which means a right to be assured, to the fullest extent attainable, in the safety of his savings. By no other means can men carry the burdens of those parts of life which, in the nature of things, afford no chance of labor; childhood, sickness, old age. In all thought of property, this right is paramount; all other property rights must yield to it. If, in accord with this principle, we must restrict the operations of the speculator, the manipulator, even the financier, I believe we must accept the restriction as needful, not to hamper individualism but to protect it".

This is a profound economic sentiment in stark contrast to the economic observances of Adam Smith. In Smiths' Theory of Moral Sentiments, (part 4, Chapter 1), he states, "The rich divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal proportions among all its inhabitants". President Roosevelt has a much different vision for the future of the American Economy. No longer shall we trust the prosperity of the poor to an invisible hand, or to the laws of nature, or even to the charity of the rich.

"This implication is, briefly, that the responsible heads of finance and industry, instead of acting each for himself, must work together to achieve the common end. They must, where necessary, sacrifice this or that private advantage; and in reciprocal self-denial must seek a general advantage. It is here that formal Government - political government, if you choose - comes in. Whenever in the pursuit of this objective the lone wolf, the un-ethical competitor, the reckless promoter, the Ishmael or Insull whose hand is against every man's, declines to join in achieving an end recognized as being for the public welfare, and threatens to drag industry back to a state of anarchy, the Government may properly be asked to apply restraint. Likewise, should the group ever use its collective power contrary to the public welfare, the Government must be swift to enter and protect the public interest".

That this new role of government would seem like a threat to capitalists and individualists did not go unnoticed by President Roosevelt. He concluded that all the rights, liberties, and protections would and ought to remain in place for the individual and that "every individual may attain such power as his ability permits, consistent with his assuming the accompanying responsibility". And so, the great economic debate began. The questions were laid out and the philosophies proscribed. And still today, the views of Roosevelt and Smith are compelled to combat each other in the public discourse, unresolved, but each gaining and losing popular support with each consecutive generation. Just as Aristotle and Plato, Empiricism and Rationalism, has waged an intellectual battle for over 2,000 years, Capitalism and Liberalism (for lack of a less offensive term) may well continue to engage each other for the years to come.

(Roosevelt Quotes from an Address by Franklin D. Roosevelt given at the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, September 23, 1932. Printed in American Government: Readings and Documents, by Peter H. Odegard, second edition. Published by Harper & Row, New York, Evanston, and London, 1964.)

The problem with Keynesian and other modern economic theories is that they assume they can control the way an economy works.

That is flat out wrong as it is impossible to predict the actions of millions of individuals making millions of decisions.

Adam Smiths theory is much more practical and realistic but to convince the populous that the government doesn't control the economy is a stretch.

 

[Burning Giraffe]

The problem with Keynesian and other modern economic theories is that they assume they can control the way an economy works.

That is flat out wrong as it is impossible to predict the actions of millions of individuals making millions of decisions.

Adam Smiths theory is much more practical and realistic but to convince the populous that the government doesn't control the economy is a stretch.

The temperament of the American People has, for the last three generations, been one of political dependence. The world has gotten too big and complicated, it moves too quickly, the players and elites are too obscure and invisible, that they simply do not trust the economy to a natural order. Most people agree that the economy must be regulated and that has created a very interesting economic effect. With the government so involved in every minute detail, the people feel the power to influence the economy to better serve their own interests, with the majority (represented by the lower-middle and lower classes) appealed to by politicians in the pursuit of secure political power. Political Power in the United States is derived from delivering the appropriate legislation to serve the interests of their constituents and the American People set the direction of government. We are experiencing the inevitable result of the subtle difference between a Social Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. How we evolved from the latter to the former is a complicated matter, but it has happened. And so, the economy no longer functions merely on supply and demand, on the value we place on goods and services, but also upon its social and political value. Which is why the stock market jumps or shivers every time a politicians opens their mouth about their intention to tax this or regulate that or to provide such and such to the People.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

The temperament of the American People has, for the last three generations, been one of political dependence. The world has gotten too big and complicated, it moves too quickly, the players and elites are too obscure and invisible, that they simply do not trust the economy to a natural order. Most people agree that the economy must be regulated and that has created a very interesting economic effect. With the government so involved in every minute detail, the people feel the power to influence the economy to better serve their own interests, with the majority (represented by the lower-middle and lower classes) appealed to by politicians in the pursuit of secure political power. Political Power in the United States is derived from delivering the appropriate legislation to serve the interests of their constituents and the American People set the direction of government. We are experiencing the inevitable result of the subtle difference between a Social Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. How we evolved from the latter to the former is a complicated matter, but it has happened. And so, the economy no longer functions merely on supply and demand, on the value we place on goods and services, but also upon its social and political value. Which is why the stock market jumps or shivers every time a politicians opens their mouth about their intention to tax this or regulate that or to provide such and such to the People.

I agree, it disgusts me to have to endure this garbage when I feel my natural talents would be better served in a natural economic environment.

Of the things I despise most is the "Its not what you know, Its who you know" process of moving up in the world.

With that philosophy you have to do things less than moral to achieve higher goals in this world. The cycle will eventually repeat itself though. Maybe we will get to experience a constitutional republic one day.

 

[Burning Giraffe]

I agree, it disgusts me to have to endure this garbage when I feel my natural talents would be better served in a natural economic environment.

Of the things I despise most is the "Its not what you know, Its who you know" process of moving up in the world.

With that philosophy you have to do things less than moral to achieve higher goals in this world. The cycle will eventually repeat itself though. Maybe we will get to experience a constitutional republic one day.

I doubt it. Typically when a Government becomes too unwieldy to sustain itself, as ours clearly has, the next step is Authoritarian order. I mean, when the people have as little ability and organization as We do, and our government has as much power as It as; and when the government can no longer sustain itself freely, the natural ease with which it may become despotic will be too much for one man or one Party to pass up. We've already seen the degrees to which our government is willing to go to achieve its ends, and it has become totally reprehensible to the capitalist, the individualist, and the libertarian. Of course, the capitalist, the individualist, and the libertarian have become the scourge of Western Civilization. We're the ones the people are taught to blame for all their trouble. You see, if you and I would only serve our purpose to contribute to the general welfare, if only we would instead of each working for ourselves, freely choose to work on behalf of a common end, everyone would live a perfectly happy life. Or, so we are told.

Therefore, if we choose not to become willing victims of The State, we must suffer the consequences. The Democrat Party has become much more draconian today than it was during the rule and reign of FDR. But at the same time, we have less opportunity to prosper today and so we are really only a strawman at this point. The Corporations have all become political. We live in a Socialist Corporatist state. Republicans and Democrats, depending on the ignorance of their respective constituencies, continue to build a State upon which we must all either depend or submit to. We no longer really have any power and many of us have refused to become willing victims of Progressive Government anyway. I know that I am much more unlikely to start another business now.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I doubt it. Typically when a Government becomes too unwieldy to sustain itself, as ours clearly has, the next step is Authoritarian order. I mean, when the people have as little ability and organization as We do, and our government has as much power as It as; and when the government can no longer sustain itself freely, the natural ease with which it may become despotic will be too much for one man or one Party to pass up. We've already seen the degrees to which our government is willing to go to achieve its ends, and it has become totally reprehensible to the capitalist, the individualist, and the libertarian. Of course, the capitalist, the individualist, and the libertarian have become the scourge of Western Civilization. We're the ones the people are taught to blame for all their trouble. You see, if you and I would only serve our purpose to contribute to the general welfare, if only we would instead of each working for ourselves, freely choose to work on behalf of a common end, everyone would live a perfectly happy life. Or, so we are told.

Therefore, if we choose not to become willing victims of The State, we must suffer the consequences. The Democrat Party has become much more draconian today than it was during the rule and reign of FDR. But at the same time, we have less opportunity to prosper today and so we are really only a strawman at this point. The Corporations have all become political. We live in a Socialist Corporatist state. Republicans and Democrats, depending on the ignorance of their respective constituencies, continue to build a State upon which we must all either depend or submit to. We no longer really have any power and many of us have refused to become willing victims of Progressive Government anyway. I know that I am much more unlikely to start another business now.

I am from the south as well, so when I hear people herald the Republicans as the saviors from progressives with fascist tendencies, its a hoot.

If you know anything about Georgia Politics most of the Repubs used to be Democrats. I do see some people closer to my and your age starting to accept Libertarianism, is it enough to make a difference, I don't know.

It sucks big time when its our turn to bring something to the world and its incredibly difficult because of previous generations ineptness and apathy.

 

[Burning Giraffe]

I am from the south as well, so when I hear people herald the Republicans as the saviors from progressives with fascist tendencies, its a hoot.

If you know anything about Georgia Politics most of the Repubs used to be Democrats. I do see some people closer to my and your age starting to accept Libertarianism, is it enough to make a difference, I don't know.

It sucks big time when its our turn to bring something to the world and its incredibly difficult because of previous generations ineptness and apathy.

In a Letter to Madison, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and encumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence..." (September 6, 1789).

Clearly, we either never really considered Jefferson's concerns as a nation, or else we simply dismissed it out of hand. The Welfare State, as we (and as Europe) have come to know it is a mortgaging of our Government, to be paid by future generations. It is a government that belongs to the dead. We require 3% annual GDP growth and a continuous growth in population to meet the economic demands of our governments entitlement programs. Which is probably why our government wants so desperately to nationalize the illegal immigrants currently living and working in America.

Of course, we could simply institute the Fair Tax and that matter would be instantly resolved without depriving our laws of the claws they were intended to have.

That said, there will come a time when youths will no longer trust their government to provide them with a future; when they will determine that today's government is depriving them of their future opportunities in order to meet the commitments of a greedy and self-absorbed generation of Baby Boomers. And when they realize this, there will be quite a stirring in this country. We're aren't getting older, faster, as in Italy, China, and Japan. The young in this country still have a great deal of power, as was seen in the last election. Now we must wait for them to experience the full force and breadth of the federal government, before changing their mind about where their allegiances lie. No?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

In a Letter to Madison, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and encumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence..." (September 6, 1789).

That is one awesome quote of his I have never heard before.
You get a special thanks for that.

Clearly, we either never really considered Jefferson's concerns as a nation, or else we simply dismissed it out of hand. The Welfare State, as we (and as Europe) have come to know it is a mortgaging of our Government, to be paid by future generations. It is a government that belongs to the dead. We require 3% annual GDP growth and a continuous growth in population to meet the economic demands of our governments entitlement programs. Which is probably why our government wants so desperately to nationalize the illegal immigrants currently living and working in America.

Have you seen the story about the man floating the idea of making a program to loan cities money during crisis' so that they may run deficits?

It speaks of the mentality some have.

Of course, we could simply institute the Fair Tax and that matter would be instantly resolved without depriving our laws of the claws they were intended to have.

I love the Fair Tax, it still has steam behind it so we may be able to do something.

That said, there will come a time when youths will no longer trust their government to provide them with a future; when they will determine that today's government is depriving them of their future opportunities in order to meet the commitments of a greedy and self-absorbed generation of Baby Boomers. And when they realize this, there will be quite a stirring in this country. We're aren't getting older, faster, as in Italy, China, and Japan. The young in this country still have a great deal of power, as was seen in the last election. Now we must wait for them to experience the full force and breadth of the federal government, before changing their mind about where their allegiances lie. No?

I think it is possible. I'm still not ruling out my secondary escape plans though.
If push comes to shove I will leave this place for the sake of my family.

Ben Franklin understood that his country is where freedom lies and so do I.

 

[Burning Giraffe]

Unfortunately, there are few free places left to live and of the few, mainly Ireland and Australia, it is becoming increasingly difficult to gain citizenship. I could not live in a country where I could not become a citizen.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Unfortunately, there are few free places left to live and of the few, mainly Ireland and Australia, it is becoming increasingly difficult to gain citizenship. I could not live in a country where I could not become a citizen.

South East Asia, the Philippines and some of the surrounding areas, Eastern Europe in some places.

Cheap cost of living and relatively lax laws on just about everything.
Although with that comes a little more crime but I think I can handle that.

 

[Burning Giraffe]

South East Asia, the Philippines and some of the surrounding areas, Eastern Europe in some places.

Cheap cost of living and relatively lax laws on just about everything.
Although with that comes a little more crime but I think I can handle that.

Cheap cost of living also usually comes with low wages... makes them nicer places to visit than to live, and work, and hopefully prosper. America is becoming a softer society all the time, and as a result, much weaker and less self-reliant. We need a harder culture, a tougher, more masculine (as if that word actually has any meaning left in this world) culture. We need to celebrate liberty and independence, in other words, we need these things to be valued by our fellow citizens. Sadly, we cannot force values on anyone. And when our values change enough, so does our society. My only hope is that their is a rekindling and regrouping of liberty-loving, independent, self-reliant, individualists in this country. We need to see more self-esteem, more self-discipline, personal responsibility, more charity and hospitality, more industriousness and ambition, more perseverance.

In other words, we need to relearn virtue. The "virtues" practiced today are so shallow and empty that they exist more as a kind of feeling than an actual set of disciplines.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Is that you John?

At first glance I was turned off by the length of your post, it took little reading to hook me.

Damn near every sentence of FDR's begged a question. Brilliant criticisms, sadly I have nothing to contribute; you said it more concisely than I could. Also, once I verify that quote I'll certainly add it to my collection.

EDIT: Also welcome to the board, I hope you post more.

 

[Burning Giraffe]

Re: Is that you John?

At first glance I was turned off by the length of your post, it took little reading to hook me.

Damn near every sentence of FDR's begged a question. Brilliant criticisms, sadly I have nothing to contribute; you said it more concisely than I could. Also, once I verify that quote I'll certainly add it to my collection.

EDIT: Also welcome to the board, I hope you post more.

Thanks. Typically, I never would have considered such a long post as my first post to a board. No one is familiar with my writing, so who would read it? I just thought President Roosevelt's speech was so telling, so fundamental to everything that has happened since. It is what separates American Liberalism from European Marxist or Russian and Chinese Communism. And yet, those principle foundations which were distinctly "American" may now be missing from the Liberal/Progressive Movement.

Roosevelt said, "Our Government, formal and informal, political and economic, owes to everyone an avenue to possess himself of a portion of that plenty sufficient for his needs, through his own work". It is hard to understand this sentence. Is Roosevelt merely discussing national and social infrastructure? It would appear not, because just before saying this, he was talking about how government cannot continue to merely focus on building infrastructure. His argument was that the Infrastructure was already built, "Now what?".

Or was he saying that Welfare should be conditioned to labor? If that's the case, isn't that kind of a form of cheap indentured labor used by the government to simply reduce the cost of infrastructure and infrastructure maintenance? Our current political rhetoric and demagoguery have become so muddled and convoluted that it really is refreshing to read about the ideas upon which our current debate and divisions are predicated.

 

[Jessica]

The problem with Keynesian and other modern economic theories is that they assume they can control the way an economy works.

That is flat out wrong as it is impossible to predict the actions of millions of individuals making millions of decisions.

Adam Smiths theory is much more practical and realistic but to convince the populous that the government doesn't control the economy is a stretch.

The problem with any and all of this along with all the other economic gibberish goes hand-in-hand with the idea that it is impossible to predict the actions of millions of people as an answer to our economic situation.

All of what you say is also not pertinent.

The simple answer is our economic situation is controlled 100% by the corrupt federal reserve. No more. No less.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

The problem with any and all of this along with all the other economic gibberish goes hand-in-hand with the idea that it is impossible to predict the actions of millions of people as an answer to our economic situation.

All of what you say is also not pertinent.

The simple answer is our economic situation is controlled 100% by the corrupt federal reserve. No more. No less.

I'm going to have to disagree.

They may think they can control it but can 100 men control 100,000 elephants.

It's not possible at this time.

 

[Burning Giraffe]

The problem with any and all of this along with all the other economic gibberish goes hand-in-hand with the idea that it is impossible to predict the actions of millions of people as an answer to our economic situation.

All of what you say is also not pertinent.

The simple answer is our economic situation is controlled 100% by the corrupt federal reserve. No more. No less.

Why don't need to predict the actions of millions of people. Economies change and shift all the time. People lose their jobs and they find new ones. The economic cushion for this reality is called "Savings", something Americans no longer take much responsibility for, or simply cannot afford since between the government and creditors, Americans have very little left over to save in the first place.

The Federal Reserve is a problem, but they are extremely powerful and I don't think there is a leader alive with the power to free us from our currently indentured position. What we need to do is create some competition for the Federal Reserve.

As Jefferson said, "The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered".