My own political views aside this forum is an enthusiastic site to express your opinion on whatever (It often is not about coins-er ..directly) Good luck in tilting against windmillows; not an unseemingly preoccupation,
<< <i><< I always thought it was in response to bad parenting. Apparently the parents weren't self policing. I don't think the parents were the only culpable party. Apparently you do. >>
I can't imagine it could be anyone's elses fault. Johnny, I'm just not comfortable with you being gone 10 hours a day. I really need to know what you're doing. Working? What? I'm calling my congressman to get some labor laws passed immediately. You know how I don't want you to work in that dangerous factory.
Puhleeze.
<< <i>Please give me an example of a purely capitalist society prior to FDR. >> United States 1789-1861. Now answer my question. Okeedoke. The Sherman Anti-trust act was passed in the late 1800's specifically to prevent the abuses pure capitalism invites. It was largely unsucessful, but determined by Congress to be necessary. "Trusts and monopolies are concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few. Such conglomerations of economic resources are thought to be injurious to the public and individuals because such trusts minimize, if not obliterate normal marketplace competition, and yield undesirable price controls. These, in turn, cause markets to stagnate and sap individual initiative. To prevent trusts from creating restraints on trade or commerce and reducing competition, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. The Sherman Act was designed to maintain economic liberty, and to eliminate restraints on trade and competition. The Sherman Act is the main source of Antitrust law." >>
Two problems. 1. You didn't answer my question as to what few individuals were controlling the population. Nebulous "trusts" and "monopolies" doesn't cut it. 2. The abuses the Sherman act tried to correct all came about AFTER my 1861 reference year so you don't have a point yet.
<< <i><< Meaningless analysis. Hitler managed to get his party elected and himself installed as Chancellor, through DEMOCRATIC means. Hilter was apparently fairly sucessful in accomplishing his goals. The libertarians are not.. >> You were holding up FDR, not the libertarians, as being worthy of priase because he managed to get elected four times. No, actually I was questioning the accomplishments of the critics on this thread, and wondering which of them had led a nation. >>
And I was pointing out that just because you managed to get elected and "lead a nation", that doesn't necessarily make you correct or a success.
<< <i><< Both Roosevelt and Churchill recognized the reality of Soviet power in 1945. >> The difference is, Churchill actually wanted to do something about it. His job lasted two weeks after the war ended. >>
Eastern Europe's fate was decided at Yalta, not within the two weeks after the war. Churchill hated Stalin and FDR sided with him.
<< <i><< Yalta myth? As if the 50 year cold war didn't happen As opposed to direct confrontation of the Soviets in Europe even though they had not attacked us? The pre-emptive strike policy didn't exist until VERY recently >> You mean just like Germany didn't attack us? It seems we took a pre-emptive policy toward them to keep them out of Poland. We came to the aid of our allies, who they did invade. >>
If we were going to go to war with Germany to "come to our allies aid", I think we would have done that in 1939, not 1941.
<< <i><< Or actually bothered to read a view of history that didn't come from a public school. On that we can agree. The view you've expressed did not come from the public school system. >> Yes, you rarely get fact based history in the public schools. On that, we disagree. Revisionists always hate mainstream academic history. >>
<< <i>Do you live in your own plastic bubble? You are arguing the same crap that 19th century rich industrialist were spewing out. >>
What? That we aren't forcing your kids to work here? There's nothing wrong with spewing out facts.
<< <i>Have you ever considered that most working families in the 1800s and early 1900s were bearly capable of supporting themselves when both parents were working full time? >>
Oh, so since the parents COULD support the family, then they must have put the kids to work to buy luxury items.
<< <i>In 1901 (Canada), the estimated cost of living was $13.38 a week, but at best the the average male worker would make $8.25 a week. Now do you understand why children needed to work inorder to supplement the families income? >>
No, I thought you just said both parents could make it. Besides, what kind of convoluted logic is that anyway. So according to you, a family can't make it unless the kids work so let's pass laws keeping the kids from working! Using you logic, I guess the child labor laws really forced children to starve since they could no longer work and the parents couldn't afford to feed them.
<< <i>If anyone wants to see the results of unrestrained capitalism take a look at the working conditions of the 19th century. >>
Unrestrained capitalism didn't exist in the second half of the 19th century despite your cliched belief that it did.
<< <i>note that there are national socialist movements that are not endorsed by the Soviet Union. >>
<< In 1901 (Canada), the estimated cost of living was $13.38 a week, but at best the the average male worker would make $8.25 a week. Now do you understand why children needed to work inorder to supplement the families income?>>
<<No, I thought you just said both parents could make it. Besides, what kind of convoluted logic is that anyway. So according to you, a family can't make it unless the kids work so let's pass laws keeping the kids from working! Using you logic, I guess the child labor laws really forced children to starve since they could no longer work and the parents couldn't afford to feed them.>>
I said MALE workers, female workers are paid alot less! Besides, I said if the parents were working full time: unemployment was frequent due to layoffs and accidents. You and your followers use convoluted logic, you know what those people that passed child labour laws said? They said that "the greedy parents were forcing their children to work." Those reformers had the right intentions, but they worsened the lot of the workers.
<< If anyone wants to see the results of unrestrained capitalism take a look at the working conditions of the 19th century. >> <<Unrestrained capitalism didn't exist in the second half of the 19th century despite your cliched belief that it did.>>
Yes, but the laws that were put in place were weak and were rarely enforced.
<< note that there are national socialist movements that are not endorsed by the Soviet Union. >>
I give you facts and you laugh. Go ahead, laugh at your own ignorence. Note, that national socialist is not capitalized.
<< <i><< In 1901 (Canada), the estimated cost of living was $13.38 a week, but at best the the average male worker would make $8.25 a week. Now do you understand why children needed to work inorder to supplement the families income?>>
I said MALE workers, female workers are paid alot less. >>
Right, that's why when you subtract $8.25 from $13.38, you get $5.13.
< << In 1901 (Canada), the estimated cost of living was $13.38 a week, but at best the the average male worker would make $8.25 a week. Now do you understand why children needed to work inorder to supplement the families income?>>
THE COST OF LIVING WAS 13.38, the AVERAGE MALE WORKER MADE 8.25
<< <i>< << In 1901 (Canada), the estimated cost of living was $13.38 a week, but at best the the average male worker would make $8.25 a week. Now do you understand why children needed to work inorder to supplement the families income?>>
THE COST OF LIVING WAS 13.38, the AVERAGE MALE WORKER MADE 8.25
+8.25 -13.38
???????
I don't know what Math you took. >>
said MALE workers, female workers are paid alot less. >>
Right, that's why when you subtract $8.25 from $13.38, you get $5.13.
The FEMALES only need to make $5.13 under your rules to make ends meet.
I'm using YOUR posts and YOUR numbers and you ask me about MY math?
The 3cent silver, because it doesn't make any sense. I mean come on where are all the eagles and dead presidents? A star on the front (meaning what?) and III with a big C curved around it. It looks like a Chinease coin or something.
<< << I always thought it was in response to bad parenting. Apparently the parents weren't self policing. I don't think the parents were the only culpable party. Apparently you do. >>
Is employing a child in the sex trade OK, as long as the parents consent, or does the employer bear ANY responsibility for the tasks they have the child perform? The government decided long ago that the employer bore some responsibility. Does that anger you? I'm OK with it.
<< Please give me an example of a purely capitalist society prior to FDR. >> Two problems. 1. You didn't answer my question as to what few individuals were controlling the population. Nebulous "trusts" and "monopolies" doesn't cut it. 2. The abuses the Sherman act tried to correct all came about AFTER my 1861 reference year so you don't have a point yet.
Do you consider owning slaves economically significant? You seem to believe that was pure period of capitalism. I chose instead to focus you on the reform efforts the government took address Rockefeller's activity with the railroads, a perfect example of an exploitive monopoly. I'd prefer to believe a workforce abducted from a foreign country and sold into slavery didn't like the economic model you suggest.
And I was pointing out that just because you managed to get elected and "lead a nation", that doesn't necessarily make you correct or a success.
You're right of course, F.D.R. was probably not as qualified as the posters here.
<< << Both Roosevelt and Churchill recognized the reality of Soviet power in 1945. >> The difference is, Churchill actually wanted to do something about it. His job lasted two weeks after the war ended. >>
Eastern Europe's fate was decided at Yalta, not within the two weeks after the war. Churchill hated Stalin and FDR sided with him.
Actually, I don't remember Soviet expansion taking place in such a brief period of time. I seem to remember it taking years, but your post makes your argument sound better.
If we were going to go to war with Germany to "come to our allies aid", I think we would have done that in 1939, not 1941.
Most of America chose to be isolationists until we were attacked. Just a fact.
<< << Or actually bothered to read a view of history that didn't come from a public school. On that we can agree. The view you've expressed did not come from the public school system. >> Yes, you rarely get fact based history in the public schools. On that, we disagree. Revisionists always hate mainstream academic history. >>
Mainstream history IS revisionist history. If you say so. Actually, this period of our history was well documented. Perhaps by chosing to ignore the political environment of the time and the popular opinion of the people who lived through that period one can rethink the facts and decide what they'd have done differently, and that F.D.R. was a fool. Frankly, I put more credence in the opinion of the people who re-elected him repeatedly than the handful of contrary opinions I've read here so far.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Even the ignorant can recognize angry old libertarians that didn't prevail in the election. >>
Not old and not angry. And the ignorant can't even define the differences between freedom and slavery. Or the differences between the American idea and slavery. Then tag it accordingly to the spirit of the thread.
Gee what a great symbol of the American idea as represented by this monster:
Franklin Roosevelt's fatuousness towards Joseph Stalin is well-known. He looked on Stalin as a fellow "progressive" and an invaluable collaborator in creating the future New World Order. But the neo-conservatives and others who counterpose to Roosevelt's inanity in this matter Churchill's Old World cunning and sagacity are sadly in error. Roosevelt's nauseating flattery of Stalin is easily matched by Churchill's. Just like Roosevelt, Churchill heaped fulsome praise on the Communist murderer, and was anxious for Stalin's personal friendship. Moreover, his adulation of Stalin and his version of Communism so different from the repellent "Trotskyite" kind was no different in private than in public. In January, 1944, he was still speaking to Eden of the "deep-seated changes which have taken place in the character of the Russian state and government, the new confidence which has grown in our hearts towards Stalin." In a letter to his wife, Clementine, Churchill wrote, following the October, 1944 conference in Moscow: "I have had very nice talks with the old Bear. I like him the more I see him.
So much more. The framers of the Constitution would have shot this guy without hesitation.
FDR came to power in March 1933, the worst point of the Great Depression, with a quarter of workers unemployed, and during the next three months there were heartening signs of a rebound. Nondurable goods manufacturing jumped 35%, durable goods manufacturing jumped 83%, and the stock market started to rise. At this rate, unemployment would have been down to about 5% by the fall of 1934.
However, investors and businessmen soon realized how FDR’s fabled "Hundred Days" of madcap legislation would throttle business. For example, the Securities Act, passed on May 27, 1933, made it more difficult for employers to raise capital. On June 16, 1933, FDR signed the National Industrial Recovery Act, authorizing some 700 industrial cartel codes (1) to force wages above market levels, which discouraged employers from hiring, and (2) to force prices above market levels, which discouraged consumers from buying. To maintain high prices, production was cut back – the opposite of what was needed for recovery. The economy had a relapse as manufacturing declined, and the unemployment situation failed to improve.
In May 1935, when FDR was planning to extend the National Industrial Recovery Act, the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. That summer began the longest sustained recovery of the 1930s, as entrepreneurs were freed from monstrous NIRA regulations. Nondurable goods production increased more than 25% from May 1935 to May 1937. Durable goods production was up 55%, and the stock market was up 60%. Unemployment fell to 14.1%, the best FDR ever did before the government began conscripting millions of young men for World War II.
What did FDR do when faced with economic recovery? He signed the Banking Act (1935), centralizing power at the Federal Reserve in the Federal Reserve Board, thereby increasing the risks that inevitable human errors by a small number of people would harm not just a city or a region but the entire country. Their first bad call came in 1936 when they hiked the Fed discount rate 50%, triggering a monetary contraction. FDR also secured passage of the Social Security Act (1935) that established excise taxes on payrolls as well as excise taxes on individual compensation – making it more expensive for employers to hire people, thereby discouraging hiring. Moreover, FDR signed the National Labor Relations Act (1935) that promoted compulsory unionism, and the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the NLRA unleashed a campaign to unionize mass production industries. The cost of hiring jumped 11% in a single year – 1937 – leading to massive layoffs. Finally, FDR secured passage of "soak the rich" taxes including an undistributed profits tax, making it harder for employers to accumulate capital. Result: FDR’s depression of 1938, a unique depression within a depression. FDR tried to revive the failed National Industrial Recovery Act, and when this effort didn’t go anywhere, he launched an unprecedented barrage of antitrust lawsuits against about 150 large employers and industries, keeping businessmen tied up in court, rather than focusing on growth and jobs.
I’ve cited only a few of FDR’s policies that prolonged the Great Depression, all covered in FDR’s Folly. Here are some others:
FDR tripled federal taxes from 1933 to 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, dividend taxes, holding company taxes, everything went up.
FDR discouraged private investment with his frequent tax hikes (1933, 1934, 1935, 1936) and with his denunciations of investors and employers ("economic royalists").
FDR channeled government spending and loan programs AWAY from the poorest people (who lived in the South), thereby undermining claims that the New Deal was compassionate. The bulk of New Deal spending and loan programs went to political "swing" states in the west and east, where previous election returns had been close. From FDR's standpoint as an incumbent, there wasn't any point giving a lot of money to the South, even though it was the poorest region, since voters there were already solidly Democratic.
FDR forced food prices, as well as the prices of manufactured goods and services, above market levels and outlawed discounting. People were fined and even jailed for cutting prices during the New Deal. Such policies penalized over 100 million American consumers and discouraged buying.
FDR promoted the large-scale destruction of food when millions were hungry, by paying farmers to plow under some 10 million acres of crops and slaughter and discard some 6 million farm animals. This program enriched big farmers who had more food to destroy than small farmers. Black tenant farmers, who depended on work, were devastated.
FDR broke up the strongest banks, with the lowest failure rate, namely big city banks like J.P. Morgan that diversified by engaging in both investment banking and commercial banking. FDR didn’t do anything about unit banking laws that accounted for 90% of bank failures by preventing small banks from diversifying with branches. Federal deposit insurance failed to stop bank failures – it transferred the cost of bank failures from bank shareholders and depositors to taxpayers.
FDR promoted government monopolies, the biggest of which was the Tennessee Valley Authority, subsidized by the 98% of American taxpayers who didn’t live in the Tennessee Valley and exempt from state and federal taxes and regulations. Despite such monopoly power, income in the TVA southern states lagged income in the non-TVA southern states (like Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia) by widening margins, and the TVA flooded more land than it saved!
Touted as a champion of democracy, FDR amassed vast arbitrary power, and even though the Democratic party controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, FDR issued 3,728 executive orders – more than all his successors combined.
From the beginning to the end, the New Deal was an attack on economic liberty, telling businesses how much they could produce, how much they had to pay people, how much they could charge, making it illegal to sell certain products (like milk) across state lines, suspending the rights of creditors, breaking up lawful businesses, dispossessing thousands of people to make way for government TVA dams and other projects, denying workers the right to choose whether to join a union, seizing the gold of peaceful citizens, using the tax code to punish some people and favor others, on and on.
But at least "he did something" as a few of the followers ( who don't really know why they follow) have stated.
This thread has been kind of a knee slapper. For those interested in reading about F.D.R in point counterpoint. I'll suggest "FDR's Folly" by Jim Powell, which MrEarlyGold has been quoting almost verbatim, and "Champion of Freedom", by Conrad Black. I prefer the latter. One of the reviewers of Mr. Powell's books had this to say:
"This book is revisionist nonsense. If you want a treatment of the New Deal, warts and all, but done by a competent historian, check out Leuchtenburg, Badger, McElvaine, Bernstein, etc."
Happy reading. This thread has become repetitive, so I'll leave it to you boys to argue among yourselves.
Roosevelt's Initiatives?
FDIC SEC FHA CCC TVA Rural Electrification Social Security
Etc,etc,etc.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<<The FEMALES only need to make $5.13 under your rules to make ends meet.
I'm using YOUR posts and YOUR numbers and you ask me about MY math?>>
I said that a family (of five) needed an average of $13.38 to make their ends meet. The AVERAGE MALE WORKER MADE 8.25 a week (without layoffs or accidents). Therefore, the mother and the children had to make up the $5.13.
First, you claim that the $5.13 is a surplus, then you pick on a one cent difference. I don't know how you got that females needed $5.13 to survive. I stated that the $13.38 cost of living was for a family. I said that the average male worker made $8.25 per week, not that his cost of living was 8.25 per week.
Numbers for earnings and costs of living are not interchangeable.
Some of you should stick to coin collecting and stay away from economics. The statement that capitalism and free markets failed and that led to the Depression is totally incorrect. It was government interference (chiefly through the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) that exacerbated a downturn in the economy. Slow downs and recessions are part of the capitalist system (can you say business cycle?) and are self-correcting if the Feds don't try to "help."
Just MHO based on a lifetime of studying financial markets and macroeconomics.
Mike
Coppernicus
Lincoln Wheats (1909 - 1958) Basic Set - Always Interested in Upgrading!
<< <i>Some of you should stick to coin collecting and stay away from economics. The statement that capitalism and free markets failed and that led to the Depression is totally incorrect. It was government interference (chiefly through the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) that exacerbated a downturn in the economy. Slow downs and recessions are part of the capitalist system (can you say business cycle?) and are self-correcting if the Feds don't try to "help."
Just MHO based on a lifetime of studying financial markets and macroeconomics.
Mike >>
Mike, I started this thread for a reason as you no doubt are aware . The study of Numismatics encompasses art, history, economics, politics, buisness and commerce, archaelogy, et'al. And certainly with regards to America, here we are in a place that in a couple hundred years, had accomplished more than every other country did in the 6,000 years of human civilization prior to our founding. There's a reason for that and of course its Freedom .
No place on earth could compare with what the founders ideas were here and the following years speak for themselves. But while the majority of people even here succumbed to the same or similar ignorance as the rest of the world ( one guy here actually made a comment that of course we're going in the "direction" of socialism as every other "civilized" country has gone ( !!! ) , or ( fdr wasn't even socialist ( too pathetic to even comment) we have traveled from being the beacon of hope and freedom to the rest of the planet, to really just a matter of percentage differences from any other place whether it's a dictatorship , military run state, welfare state, so called "democracy" ( hahaha) etc etc with this place adopting the same or similar socialist big government principles as the rest of the world. So if we were to answer the question " are we more free or less free" than the previous generations were, the answer of course is not as free ( by far)
And a large number of mind numbed idiots who don't even realize where we've been, where we are now and what direction we're headed in and why, or worse, are actually in disagreement with the facts and are willing and happy to sell yours and my children to the state, to support their own selfish and twisted ideas of how this place should be.
It's a shame. Numismatics can open the window shades of history and thankfully, there are a few people as evidenced on this forum who know what the facts are. The most amazing thing is that while the template of freedom was created in 1776, and the world stood "in awe" at what was done here, they simultaneously continued to control and manipulate their peoples as they have for 6,000 years, disregarding the essence of the American ideal, which was freedom. And there are people who are so ignorant that they either avoid the truth and the facts and insist on wanting to manipulate the people thru their government, for their own selfish ideas on what everybody else "should" be doing.
And just like in 1933 when about the only people who didn't stand in line like cattle at the slaughter to give up their property ( gold) to the government thieves run by the likes of fdr, as the business of coin dealing may be the last bastion of free enterprise in the US and world, the Numismatist may be the last ones to keep the spark of freedom alive because of his/her awareness and knowledge of history.
And I agree with you about the ones needing to simply collect coins, but frankly, I don't know how you can do that with any real depth, without at the very least being a student of Numismatics and all it encompasses.
Very well stated, mrearlygold. I do appreciate our history and thus am very concerned about the "trends" brought up by others here. We do have less freedom than in the past, though still an awful lot. When I see a creeping socialization of many of our institutions, both governmental and other, I feeling like screaming, "Don't you people get it? The changes to our system that you are proposing will kill the very spirit that made us a great country!" One cannot have entrepreneurial capitalism flourish in a heavily taxed, heavily regulated, PC system, etc., system. Those congresspeople who advocate these types of things are "killing the goose that's been laying (and still is laying), the golden eggs!"
Classic example - when Congress put on the luxuary tax in the 80's. The builders of high end yachts all but disappeared in the US. Thousands of jobs lost and, of course, the rich just bought their boats from overseas manufacturers. Law of unintended consequences - I swear, some of our elected officials have ceased to THINK!!
BTW - The coin is probably the Sac or the SBA...
Coppernicus
Lincoln Wheats (1909 - 1958) Basic Set - Always Interested in Upgrading!
to support their own selfish and twisted ideas of how this place should be.
Gentlemen, we have finally reached the essence of this debate. It is not a case of one's own selfish or twisted ideas, but rather the popular will of the majority. The efforts to characterize FDR as foolish ignore the political climate when he took office. Our country was in a depression, and it wasn't simply economic. FDR promised to level the playing field for the average man, and restored hope in their future. Was it the best solution to the economic quagmire? Maybe not, but I don't recall seeing a more popular one being presented by a competing candidate. FDIC (insured deposits), SEC (regulation of securities), FHA (housing athority), CCC (workfare), Rural Electrification, and the much maligned Social Security were all programs aimed at the working (or unemployed) class. Did the most sucessful businessmen hate it? You bet. Was it painful? Most likely. It was simply a redistribution of the wealth. Unfair to the wealthy? Sure. It has always been true, and will always be true that when the divide between the haves and the have nots grows too great, change is imminent. Is it better done through evolution rather than revolution? I prefer elections. At least within the constraints of our current system, the haves still have most of the control of the process. Vilify FDR? I think not. I'd say he is a least partially responsible for the continued sucess of our political system, whether we like it or not.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Some interesting points DHeath but I think you have overlooked a critical item. Many, but certainly not all, of the programs (Social Security in particular) were supposed to be temporary and would expire when the economy recovered. When was the last time a federal program was cut or eliminated? And by cut, I mean really cut, not just appropriated less than originally planned in a given fiscal year.
I have no problem paying taxes to, in part, assist those who cannot help themselves. To me that is the American way. BUT, when the federal government is proposing to, for example, subsidize daycare (and not just for the truly poor, either) that's when I say enough! Let me get this straight: I am going to be paying for my neighbor's baby sitter?!
There should be some limits here....
Added: On the have vs. have nots, a less encumbered capitalistic system will "lift all boats" - Also, why must every one be nearly "equal" - Such a goal destroys incentive to move up (economically and socially) 'cause everyone is at nearly the same level (however defined) so where is there to go? Over 60% of Americans own stock in their 401ks or similar retirement plans. So much for the class warfare a certain presidential candidate is trying to drum up.
Ok, I'll stop ranting....
Coppernicus
Lincoln Wheats (1909 - 1958) Basic Set - Always Interested in Upgrading!
Vilify FDR? I think not. I'd say he is a least partially responsible for the continued sucess of our political system, whether we like it or not. >>
The previous comments were worthless blather which has already been responded too.
The final comment is laughable at best. Success of the present political system? So in essence you enjoy being dictated to and having NO SAY in whatever happens. The political system as it stands has made voting a joke . In fact if voting at this point could make any changes at all , it would be illegal.
And as far as the "will of the majority", I have to comment on that totally ignorant statement. This is your rendition of Freedom bud? So in other words if 51% of the so called majority has decided to scrap what's left of the Constitution and even further dictate to the masses what they can do, what they should think and say, how much of their lives they should give up, can the other 49% be considered free?
You're part of the problem . Stop being part of the problem.
I have no problem paying taxes to, in part, assist those who cannot help themselves.
Ok, I'll stop ranting.... >>
You're not ranting Mike. And you're having no problem paying taxes to those interests are great. But now comes the underlying principle of socialism does it not and that is "force". Do you think that everyone should be forced to pay this money from their earnings to support what you have no problem with?
What if I were to say that I have no problem paying taxes so as to build another military complex large enough to support razing other countries who don't "think" the way I would like them to think. And if I were to have enough political clout to get that signed into law which would the require you to pay for it, despite your strong objections to it ( pick any subject, interest). Are you a free man?
What "was" the essence, spirit AND letter of the founders?
We're at a higher level of taxation that what is current in communist China and Vietnam. Bet not many people are even aware of that fact. So in response to your statement that "we still have a lot of freedoms" I would have to counter with not really in comparison to where we were, and certainly the direction we're headed in is either bankruprcy, or an even further erosion of freedom. The debt is now over 7 trillion and it's not coming down and they are going to collect it one way or another.
Now comes the pivotal question and that is, who are the political figures who started this and if you agree with the premise of Freedom as it was in the beginning, and which coin most poorly illustrates the figure, idea and concept that is most counter to those ideals and principles.
I say that you can't have varying degrees of freedom. You are either free or you have varying degrees of slavery. We're about 50/50 at this point ( unless you've got a real good accountant)
TP, the freedom we all enjoy is the freedom to bring about change politically. Scrap the constitution? Hardly. It's usually just reinterpreted, or amended. The 16th is a doosey huh. Ignoring the electoral college for a moment, the majority usually does choose the president, their congressmen and their senators. Is the minority free? Sure, they're free to argue, lament, vote, campaign, or do anything else they'd like legally to bring about change. They're free to express opinions just as you have done in this thread. Between you and I though, until you can convince the majority how inherently evil goverment sponsored social programs are, you'll likely remain on the political fringe, doing nothing but blaming dead presidents, calling those in the political mainstream ignorant, and paying your taxes just like me. Good luck.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Which US coin most poorly illustrates America and why?
Roosevelt is the worst. On the "ideas" of America and liberty he and his clan were statist, big government socialists and from a numismatic perspective, a crappy design.
It should have been moved to the open forum immediately after this, the first post of the thread. My advice: when you're finished reading a book take some time to digest it, reflect on it, consider alternate views etc rather than immediately quoting it as gospel and referring to those with varying opinions as "ignorant" or "idiots".
Perhaps this thread should be moved to the open forum, but it's here so I'll respond here.
How can people possibly justify theft? And just because it's done with the power of the State doesn't make it right. Nor does majority rule make might right. How is it ethical to rob Peter to pay Paul?
I doubt many of you have seen the results of the most comprehensive socialist test ever: the Soviet Union. I have. I've been there. It's an awesome sight to see a total lack of goods available for sale, a total lack of color anywhere in the cities (save for the building-size paintings of soldiers and citizens doing everything for their homeland--the State). Infrequent lines 2 miles long, whenever anything of value comes up for sale. Streets empty of cars except for those owned by government-connected people. A tax level so high (100%) that people don't know what taxes were--they argued that there were no taxes under communism!!!!!! People starving because of misallocation of resources. A total lack of rule of law. No private property rights. No personal rights.
Sound familiar? It's here in America already and people don't even notice. Like quicksand--you don't notice until you're already trapped.
.....GOD
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
I guess this would be a good time to add that I don't feel there's much chance of reversing the direction our country has taken. I don't believe there's any realistic chance to regain the freedom that we once had but have squandered.
Rather, as I've alluded to in my signature line, I place my hope in faith in God. Our Creator has unlimited power, and will protect His people in times of need. It's better to have faith in God than to place that hope in people or political and civil institutions created and controlled by man. Hence, I'm not worried about anything, including the downward trend that our country has been taking for well over 100 years.
What I find particularly interesting is that none of this socialism, this theft, etc is new. There's nothing new under the sun. We were warned about the dangers and atrocities commited by a large government not only by our recent Founding Fathers, but many thousands of years ago by Samuel, who, when asked by the Israelites for a king, responded that it was against God's will to have a king because if God had wanted people to have a king, He would have given them one. Instead, He gave them a set of rules to live by. Samuel reminded them that the people were rebelling against God's rule by demanding a king, and warned them what a king would do to them: steal their money and property, send them to fight wars, kill them and take their wives and daughters, etc. Do you see how we never learn? We're a "stiff-necked people". Unfortunately.
.....GOD
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
It should have been moved to the open forum immediately after this, the first post of the thread. My advice: when you're finished reading a book take some time to digest it, reflect on it, consider alternate views etc rather than immediately quoting it as gospel and referring to those with varying opinions as "ignorant" or "idiots". >>
Hey and you should go there if that's where you want to be. But no you insist on coming back and whining. Stop whining!
And maybe YOU should consider reading things like "Common Sense", Dec of Independence, the Contitution and seeing what percentages of those you comprehend and what you don't especially with regards to where this country is , was, and what direction it's going in so you can reply to what the thread's idea was/is to begin with.
Looks like this thread is one of the most visited on the while forum BTW.
Let me think......where this country was. We appropriated a continent from the native population, covered with old growth forests, naval stores, prime farmland, minerals, oil, and wildlife. We broke every treaty we signed with that population, and interned them on reservations. We farmed it with slaves. Of course we didn't let the poor, minorities, or women vote. We enjoyed ownership of the natural resources of this new nation during the industrial revolution. The captains of industry were so sucessful that regulations were required to prevent predatory trade practices. Ah, the good old days when we were free. Who needs a social conscience. It's every man for themselves.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Let me think......where this country was. We appropriated a continent from the native population, covered with old growth forests, naval stores, prime farmland, minerals, oil, and wildlife. We broke every treaty we signed with that population, and interned them on reservations. We farmed it with slaves. Of course we didn't let the poor, minorities, or women vote. We enjoyed ownership of the natural resources of this new nation during the industrial revolution. The captains of industry were so sucessful that regulations were required to prevent predatory trade practices. Ah, the good old days when we were free. Who needs a social conscience. It's every man for themselves. >>
Honestly, I don't know how you can live with yourself. You need to make a genuine gesture of repentance to the native population and collecting Sacagewa dollars won't get the job done. You need to find a native family and sign over the deed to your home. True compassion and justice demands nothing less.
<< <i>Let me think......where this country was. We appropriated a continent from the native population, covered with old growth forests, naval stores, prime farmland, minerals, oil, and wildlife. We broke every treaty we signed with that population, and interned them on reservations. We farmed it with slaves. Of course we didn't let the poor, minorities, or women vote. We enjoyed ownership of the natural resources of this new nation during the industrial revolution. The captains of industry were so sucessful that regulations were required to prevent predatory trade practices. Ah, the good old days when we were free. Who needs a social conscience. It's every man for themselves. >>
Honestly, I don't know how you can live with yourself. You need to make a genuine gesture of repentance to the native population and collecting Sacagewa dollars won't get the job done. You need to find a native family and sign over the deed to your home. True compassion and justice demands nothing less. >>
Bingo. You ever notice these types who have no clue as to what factual history is, yet bash Amerixa while supporting and actually praying for "everyone else" to pay for their own shallow interests?
Then there's the one who thinks this should be on an "open forum" when in fact they totally missed the point ( made several times, and not that it should even need to be made in the first place) how this is directly tied to the study of Numismatics.
Then there's the one who thinks this should be on an "open forum" when in fact they totally missed the point
I understood the point of this thread as soon as you started crusading against "Roosevelt the Communist" under the guise of discussing his portrait on a dime.
It's pointless to discuss it, you're about as open minded as Joe McCarthy - and I consider myself to be a Libertarian.
<< <i>Then there's the one who thinks this should be on an "open forum" when in fact they totally missed the point
I understood the point of this thread as soon as you started crusading against "Roosevelt the Communist" under the guise of discussing his portrait on a dime.
It's pointless to discuss it, you're about as open minded as Joe McCarthy - and I consider myself to be a Libertarian. >>
So stop trying to! You obviously have comprehension problems then.
Evidently, there's a massive federally subsidized day care program. Who knew? Roosevelt was a communist. The New Deal was socialism. We're less free today than ever before. It's absolutely staggering how many people on this board and in the country know not a thing about their own government and history, yet enthusiastically hold forth as experts on public policy. Not everyone has an opinion. An opinion is an informed judgment. By definition, those who are not informed do not have opinions. They merely echo the opinions of those who reinforce their own prejudices. It is sad when otherwise intelligent people choose ignorance. And here in this thread is yet another example of the death of debate. "Debate" has been replaced by shouting matches among uninformed participants on all sides.
Sorry for the rant, but as a student of policy, I find these exchanges infuriating (but irresistible) to read. There are entirely too many factual inaccuracies to even begin to unravel it all.
If being Libertarian means endorsing a purely Capitalist system whereby starving people are doomed to die in the streets and wealthy capital holders are allowed to become feudal slumlords, then there are about 3 Libertarians in the U.S. (but a couple of 'em are in the Open Forum alone).
<< <i>If being Libertarian means endorsing a purely Capitalist system whereby starving people are doomed to die in the streets and wealthy capital holders are allowed to become feudal slumlords, then there are about 3 Libertarians in the U.S. (but a couple of 'em are in the Open Forum alone).
Good luck. >>
Thanks.
Maybe you should go to http://www.lp.org or search on Mises.org and do some research if you have to ask. Really.
TP, earlier in this thread, Mr.Goldfinger said Roosevelt was hardly a socialist, and the dime isn't the worst coin design, IMO When he later said "Evidently, there's a massive federally subsidized day care program. Who knew? Roosevelt was a communist. The New Deal was socialism. We're less free today than ever before. It's absolutely staggering how many people on this board and in the country know not a thing about their own government and history, yet enthusiastically hold forth as experts on public policy. ", he was not agreeing with your posts. There's no need to thank him, and I agree, it was well said.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>TP, earlier in this thread, Mr.Goldfinger said Roosevelt was hardly a socialist, and the dime isn't the worst coin design, IMO When he later said "Evidently, there's a massive federally subsidized day care program. Who knew? Roosevelt was a communist. The New Deal was socialism. We're less free today than ever before. It's absolutely staggering how many people on this board and in the country know not a thing about their own government and history, yet enthusiastically hold forth as experts on public policy. ", he was not agreeing with your posts. There's no need to thank him, and I agree, it was well said. >>
I think the Buffalo Nickel is the best example of the most poorly illustrated Americana coin. We still kill the Bison on Federal land because of the greed of Cattle ranching and have turned the once noble indian into the purveyors of vice. Is this america?
Comments
Good luck in tilting against windmillows; not an unseemingly preoccupation,
<< <i><< I always thought it was in response to bad parenting.
Apparently the parents weren't self policing.
I don't think the parents were the only culpable party. Apparently you do. >>
I can't imagine it could be anyone's elses fault. Johnny, I'm just not comfortable with you being gone 10 hours a day. I really need to know what you're doing. Working? What? I'm calling my congressman to get some labor laws passed immediately. You know how I don't want you to work in that dangerous factory.
Puhleeze.
<< <i>Please give me an example of a purely capitalist society prior to FDR. >>
United States 1789-1861. Now answer my question.
Okeedoke. The Sherman Anti-trust act was passed in the late 1800's specifically to prevent the abuses pure capitalism invites. It was largely unsucessful, but determined by Congress to be necessary.
"Trusts and monopolies are concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few. Such conglomerations of economic resources are thought to be injurious to the public and individuals because such trusts minimize, if not obliterate normal marketplace competition, and yield undesirable price controls. These, in turn, cause markets to stagnate and sap individual initiative.
To prevent trusts from creating restraints on trade or commerce and reducing competition, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. The Sherman Act was designed to maintain economic liberty, and to eliminate restraints on trade and competition. The Sherman Act is the main source of Antitrust law." >>
Two problems. 1. You didn't answer my question as to what few individuals were controlling the population. Nebulous "trusts" and "monopolies" doesn't cut it. 2. The abuses the Sherman act tried to correct all came about AFTER my 1861 reference year so you don't have a point yet.
<< <i><< Meaningless analysis. Hitler managed to get his party elected and himself installed as Chancellor, through DEMOCRATIC means.
Hilter was apparently fairly sucessful in accomplishing his goals. The libertarians are not.. >>
You were holding up FDR, not the libertarians, as being worthy of priase because he managed to get elected four times.
No, actually I was questioning the accomplishments of the critics on this thread, and wondering which of them had led a nation.
And I was pointing out that just because you managed to get elected and "lead a nation", that doesn't necessarily make you correct or a success.
<< <i><< Both Roosevelt and Churchill recognized the reality of Soviet power in 1945. >>
The difference is, Churchill actually wanted to do something about it.
His job lasted two weeks after the war ended. >>
Eastern Europe's fate was decided at Yalta, not within the two weeks after the war. Churchill hated Stalin and FDR sided with him.
<< <i><< Yalta myth? As if the 50 year cold war didn't happen
As opposed to direct confrontation of the Soviets in Europe even though they had not attacked us? The pre-emptive strike policy didn't exist until VERY recently >>
You mean just like Germany didn't attack us? It seems we took a pre-emptive policy toward them to keep them out of Poland.
We came to the aid of our allies, who they did invade. >>
If we were going to go to war with Germany to "come to our allies aid", I think we would have done that in 1939, not 1941.
<< <i><< Or actually bothered to read a view of history that didn't come from a public school.
On that we can agree. The view you've expressed did not come from the public school system. >>
Yes, you rarely get fact based history in the public schools.
On that, we disagree. Revisionists always hate mainstream academic history. >>
Mainstream history IS revisionist history.
What are you talking about? History is rewritten all the time?
<< <i>Do you live in your own plastic bubble? You are arguing the same crap that 19th century rich industrialist were spewing out. >>
What? That we aren't forcing your kids to work here? There's nothing wrong with spewing out facts.
<< <i>Have you ever considered that most working families in the 1800s and early 1900s were bearly capable of supporting themselves when both parents were working full time? >>
Oh, so since the parents COULD support the family, then they must have put the kids to work to buy luxury items.
<< <i>In 1901 (Canada), the estimated cost of living was $13.38 a week, but at best the the average male worker would make $8.25 a week. Now do you understand why children needed to work inorder to supplement the families income? >>
No, I thought you just said both parents could make it. Besides, what kind of convoluted logic is that anyway. So according to you, a family can't make it unless the kids work so let's pass laws keeping the kids from working! Using you logic, I guess the child labor laws really forced children to starve since they could no longer work and the parents couldn't afford to feed them.
<< <i>If anyone wants to see the results of unrestrained capitalism take a look at the working conditions of the 19th century. >>
Unrestrained capitalism didn't exist in the second half of the 19th century despite your cliched belief that it did.
<< <i>note that there are national socialist movements that are not endorsed by the Soviet Union. >>
<<No, I thought you just said both parents could make it. Besides, what kind of convoluted logic is that anyway. So according to you, a family can't make it unless the kids work so let's pass laws keeping the kids from working! Using you logic, I guess the child labor laws really forced children to starve since they could no longer work and the parents couldn't afford to feed them.>>
I said MALE workers, female workers are paid alot less! Besides, I said if the parents were working full time: unemployment was frequent due to layoffs and accidents. You and your followers use convoluted logic, you know what those people that passed child labour laws said? They said that "the greedy parents were forcing their children to work." Those reformers had the right intentions, but they worsened the lot of the workers.
<< If anyone wants to see the results of unrestrained capitalism take a look at the working conditions of the 19th century. >>
<<Unrestrained capitalism didn't exist in the second half of the 19th century despite your cliched belief that it did.>>
Yes, but the laws that were put in place were weak and were rarely enforced.
<< note that there are national socialist movements that are not endorsed by the Soviet Union. >>
I give you facts and you laugh. Go ahead, laugh at your own ignorence. Note, that national socialist is not capitalized.
<< <i><< In 1901 (Canada), the estimated cost of living was $13.38 a week, but at best the the average male worker would make $8.25 a week. Now do you understand why children needed to work inorder to supplement the families income?>>
I said MALE workers, female workers are paid alot less. >>
Right, that's why when you subtract $8.25 from $13.38, you get $5.13.
THE COST OF LIVING WAS 13.38, the AVERAGE MALE WORKER MADE 8.25
+8.25 -13.38
???????
I don't know what Math you took.
<< <i>< << In 1901 (Canada), the estimated cost of living was $13.38 a week, but at best the the average male worker would make $8.25 a week. Now do you understand why children needed to work inorder to supplement the families income?>>
THE COST OF LIVING WAS 13.38, the AVERAGE MALE WORKER MADE 8.25
+8.25 -13.38
???????
I don't know what Math you took. >>
said MALE workers, female workers are paid alot less. >>
Right, that's why when you subtract $8.25 from $13.38, you get $5.13.
The FEMALES only need to make $5.13 under your rules to make ends meet.
I'm using YOUR posts and YOUR numbers and you ask me about MY math?
<< <i>That is a 5.12 shortfall. >>
I always thought 25 and 13 made 38, not 25 and 12.
This conversaton has really degraded to the point of absurdity.
A star on the front (meaning what?) and III with a big C curved around it. It looks like a Chinease coin or something.
Apparently the parents weren't self policing.
I don't think the parents were the only culpable party. Apparently you do. >>
Is employing a child in the sex trade OK, as long as the parents consent, or does the employer bear ANY responsibility for the tasks they have the child perform? The government decided long ago that the employer bore some responsibility. Does that anger you? I'm OK with it.
<< Please give me an example of a purely capitalist society prior to FDR. >>
Two problems. 1. You didn't answer my question as to what few individuals were controlling the population. Nebulous "trusts" and "monopolies" doesn't cut it. 2. The abuses the Sherman act tried to correct all came about AFTER my 1861 reference year so you don't have a point yet.
Do you consider owning slaves economically significant? You seem to believe that was pure period of capitalism. I chose instead to focus you on the reform efforts the government took address Rockefeller's activity with the railroads, a perfect example of an exploitive monopoly. I'd prefer to believe a workforce abducted from a foreign country and sold into slavery didn't like the economic model you suggest.
And I was pointing out that just because you managed to get elected and "lead a nation", that doesn't necessarily make you correct or a success.
You're right of course, F.D.R. was probably not as qualified as the posters here.
<< << Both Roosevelt and Churchill recognized the reality of Soviet power in 1945. >>
The difference is, Churchill actually wanted to do something about it.
His job lasted two weeks after the war ended. >>
Eastern Europe's fate was decided at Yalta, not within the two weeks after the war. Churchill hated Stalin and FDR sided with him.
Actually, I don't remember Soviet expansion taking place in such a brief period of time. I seem to remember it taking years, but your post makes your argument sound better.
If we were going to go to war with Germany to "come to our allies aid", I think we would have done that in 1939, not 1941.
Most of America chose to be isolationists until we were attacked. Just a fact.
<< << Or actually bothered to read a view of history that didn't come from a public school.
On that we can agree. The view you've expressed did not come from the public school system. >>
Yes, you rarely get fact based history in the public schools.
On that, we disagree. Revisionists always hate mainstream academic history. >>
Mainstream history IS revisionist history.
If you say so. Actually, this period of our history was well documented. Perhaps by chosing to ignore the political environment of the time and the popular opinion of the people who lived through that period one can rethink the facts and decide what they'd have done differently, and that F.D.R. was a fool. Frankly, I put more credence in the opinion of the people who re-elected him repeatedly than the handful of contrary opinions I've read here so far.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Even the ignorant can recognize angry old libertarians that didn't prevail in the election.
Not old and not angry. And the ignorant can't even define the differences between freedom and slavery. Or the differences between the American idea and slavery. Then tag it accordingly to the spirit of the thread.
Pathetic.
TP
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Franklin Roosevelt's fatuousness towards Joseph Stalin is well-known. He looked on Stalin as a fellow "progressive" and an invaluable collaborator in creating the future New World Order. But the neo-conservatives and others who counterpose to Roosevelt's inanity in this matter Churchill's Old World cunning and sagacity are sadly in error. Roosevelt's nauseating flattery of Stalin is easily matched by Churchill's. Just like Roosevelt, Churchill heaped fulsome praise on the Communist murderer, and was anxious for Stalin's personal friendship. Moreover, his adulation of Stalin and his version of Communism so different from the repellent "Trotskyite" kind was no different in private than in public. In January, 1944, he was still speaking to Eden of the "deep-seated changes which have taken place in the character of the Russian state and government, the new confidence which has grown in our hearts towards Stalin." In a letter to his wife, Clementine, Churchill wrote, following the October, 1944 conference in Moscow: "I have had very nice talks with the old Bear. I like him the more I see him.
TP
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
FDR came to power in March 1933, the worst point of the Great Depression, with a quarter of workers unemployed, and during the next three months there were heartening signs of a rebound. Nondurable goods manufacturing jumped 35%, durable goods manufacturing jumped 83%, and the stock market started to rise. At this rate, unemployment would have been down to about 5% by the fall of 1934.
However, investors and businessmen soon realized how FDR’s fabled "Hundred Days" of madcap legislation would throttle business. For example, the Securities Act, passed on May 27, 1933, made it more difficult for employers to raise capital. On June 16, 1933, FDR signed the National Industrial Recovery Act, authorizing some 700 industrial cartel codes (1) to force wages above market levels, which discouraged employers from hiring, and (2) to force prices above market levels, which discouraged consumers from buying. To maintain high prices, production was cut back – the opposite of what was needed for recovery. The economy had a relapse as manufacturing declined, and the unemployment situation failed to improve.
In May 1935, when FDR was planning to extend the National Industrial Recovery Act, the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. That summer began the longest sustained recovery of the 1930s, as entrepreneurs were freed from monstrous NIRA regulations. Nondurable goods production increased more than 25% from May 1935 to May 1937. Durable goods production was up 55%, and the stock market was up 60%. Unemployment fell to 14.1%, the best FDR ever did before the government began conscripting millions of young men for World War II.
What did FDR do when faced with economic recovery? He signed the Banking Act (1935), centralizing power at the Federal Reserve in the Federal Reserve Board, thereby increasing the risks that inevitable human errors by a small number of people would harm not just a city or a region but the entire country. Their first bad call came in 1936 when they hiked the Fed discount rate 50%, triggering a monetary contraction. FDR also secured passage of the Social Security Act (1935) that established excise taxes on payrolls as well as excise taxes on individual compensation – making it more expensive for employers to hire people, thereby discouraging hiring. Moreover, FDR signed the National Labor Relations Act (1935) that promoted compulsory unionism, and the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the NLRA unleashed a campaign to unionize mass production industries. The cost of hiring jumped 11% in a single year – 1937 – leading to massive layoffs. Finally, FDR secured passage of "soak the rich" taxes including an undistributed profits tax, making it harder for employers to accumulate capital. Result: FDR’s depression of 1938, a unique depression within a depression. FDR tried to revive the failed National Industrial Recovery Act, and when this effort didn’t go anywhere, he launched an unprecedented barrage of antitrust lawsuits against about 150 large employers and industries, keeping businessmen tied up in court, rather than focusing on growth and jobs.
I’ve cited only a few of FDR’s policies that prolonged the Great Depression, all covered in FDR’s Folly. Here are some others:
FDR tripled federal taxes from 1933 to 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, dividend taxes, holding company taxes, everything went up.
FDR discouraged private investment with his frequent tax hikes (1933, 1934, 1935, 1936) and with his denunciations of investors and employers ("economic royalists").
FDR channeled government spending and loan programs AWAY from the poorest people (who lived in the South), thereby undermining claims that the New Deal was compassionate. The bulk of New Deal spending and loan programs went to political "swing" states in the west and east, where previous election returns had been close. From FDR's standpoint as an incumbent, there wasn't any point giving a lot of money to the South, even though it was the poorest region, since voters there were already solidly Democratic.
FDR forced food prices, as well as the prices of manufactured goods and services, above market levels and outlawed discounting. People were fined and even jailed for cutting prices during the New Deal. Such policies penalized over 100 million American consumers and discouraged buying.
FDR promoted the large-scale destruction of food when millions were hungry, by paying farmers to plow under some 10 million acres of crops and slaughter and discard some 6 million farm animals. This program enriched big farmers who had more food to destroy than small farmers. Black tenant farmers, who depended on work, were devastated.
FDR broke up the strongest banks, with the lowest failure rate, namely big city banks like J.P. Morgan that diversified by engaging in both investment banking and commercial banking. FDR didn’t do anything about unit banking laws that accounted for 90% of bank failures by preventing small banks from diversifying with branches. Federal deposit insurance failed to stop bank failures – it transferred the cost of bank failures from bank shareholders and depositors to taxpayers.
FDR promoted government monopolies, the biggest of which was the Tennessee Valley Authority, subsidized by the 98% of American taxpayers who didn’t live in the Tennessee Valley and exempt from state and federal taxes and regulations. Despite such monopoly power, income in the TVA southern states lagged income in the non-TVA southern states (like Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia) by widening margins, and the TVA flooded more land than it saved!
Touted as a champion of democracy, FDR amassed vast arbitrary power, and even though the Democratic party controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, FDR issued 3,728 executive orders – more than all his successors combined.
From the beginning to the end, the New Deal was an attack on economic liberty, telling businesses how much they could produce, how much they had to pay people, how much they could charge, making it illegal to sell certain products (like milk) across state lines, suspending the rights of creditors, breaking up lawful businesses, dispossessing thousands of people to make way for government TVA dams and other projects, denying workers the right to choose whether to join a union, seizing the gold of peaceful citizens, using the tax code to punish some people and favor others, on and on.
But at least "he did something" as a few of the followers ( who don't really know why they follow) have stated.
TP
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
"This book is revisionist nonsense. If you want a treatment of the New Deal, warts and all, but done by a competent historian, check out Leuchtenburg, Badger, McElvaine, Bernstein, etc."
Happy reading. This thread has become repetitive, so I'll leave it to you boys to argue among yourselves.
Roosevelt's Initiatives?
FDIC
SEC
FHA
CCC
TVA
Rural Electrification
Social Security
Etc,etc,etc.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I'm using YOUR posts and YOUR numbers and you ask me about MY math?>>
I said that a family (of five) needed an average of $13.38 to make their ends meet. The AVERAGE MALE WORKER MADE 8.25 a week (without layoffs or accidents). Therefore, the mother and the children had to make up the $5.13.
First, you claim that the $5.13 is a surplus, then you pick on a one cent difference. I don't know how you got that females needed $5.13 to survive. I stated that the $13.38 cost of living was for a family. I said that the average male worker made $8.25 per week, not that his cost of living was 8.25 per week.
Numbers for earnings and costs of living are not interchangeable.
Just MHO based on a lifetime of studying financial markets and macroeconomics.
Mike
Lincoln Wheats (1909 - 1958) Basic Set - Always Interested in Upgrading!
<< <i>Some of you should stick to coin collecting and stay away from economics. The statement that capitalism and free markets failed and that led to the Depression is totally incorrect. It was government interference (chiefly through the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) that exacerbated a downturn in the economy. Slow downs and recessions are part of the capitalist system (can you say business cycle?) and are self-correcting if the Feds don't try to "help."
Just MHO based on a lifetime of studying financial markets and macroeconomics.
Mike >>
Mike, I started this thread for a reason as you no doubt are aware
No place on earth could compare with what the founders ideas were here and the following years speak for themselves. But while the majority of people even here succumbed to the same or similar ignorance as the rest of the world ( one guy here actually made a comment that of course we're going in the "direction" of socialism as every other "civilized" country has gone ( !!! ) , or ( fdr wasn't even socialist ( too pathetic to even comment) we have traveled from being the beacon of hope and freedom to the rest of the planet, to really just a matter of percentage differences from any other place whether it's a dictatorship , military run state, welfare state, so called "democracy" ( hahaha) etc etc with this place adopting the same or similar socialist big government principles as the rest of the world. So if we were to answer the question " are we more free or less free" than the previous generations were, the answer of course is not as free ( by far)
And a large number of mind numbed idiots who don't even realize where we've been, where we are now and what direction we're headed in and why, or worse, are actually in disagreement with the facts and are willing and happy to sell yours and my children to the state, to support their own selfish and twisted ideas of how this place should be.
It's a shame. Numismatics can open the window shades of history and thankfully, there are a few people as evidenced on this forum who know what the facts are. The most amazing thing is that while the template of freedom was created in 1776, and the world stood "in awe" at what was done here, they simultaneously continued to control and manipulate their peoples as they have for 6,000 years, disregarding the essence of the American ideal, which was freedom. And there are people who are so ignorant that they either avoid the truth and the facts and insist on wanting to manipulate the people thru their government, for their own selfish ideas on what everybody else "should" be doing.
And just like in 1933 when about the only people who didn't stand in line like cattle at the slaughter to give up their property ( gold) to the government thieves run by the likes of fdr, as the business of coin dealing may be the last bastion of free enterprise in the US and world, the Numismatist may be the last ones to keep the spark of freedom alive because of his/her awareness and knowledge of history.
And I agree with you about the ones needing to simply collect coins, but frankly, I don't know how you can do that with any real depth, without at the very least being a student of Numismatics and all it encompasses.
Rgrds
TP
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Classic example - when Congress put on the luxuary tax in the 80's. The builders of high end yachts all but disappeared in the US. Thousands of jobs lost and, of course, the rich just bought their boats from overseas manufacturers. Law of unintended consequences - I swear, some of our elected officials have ceased to THINK!!
BTW - The coin is probably the Sac or the SBA...
Lincoln Wheats (1909 - 1958) Basic Set - Always Interested in Upgrading!
Gentlemen, we have finally reached the essence of this debate. It is not a case of one's own selfish or twisted ideas, but rather the popular will of the majority. The efforts to characterize FDR as foolish ignore the political climate when he took office. Our country was in a depression, and it wasn't simply economic. FDR promised to level the playing field for the average man, and restored hope in their future. Was it the best solution to the economic quagmire? Maybe not, but I don't recall seeing a more popular one being presented by a competing candidate. FDIC (insured deposits), SEC (regulation of securities), FHA (housing athority), CCC (workfare), Rural Electrification, and the much maligned Social Security were all programs aimed at the working (or unemployed) class. Did the most sucessful businessmen hate it? You bet. Was it painful? Most likely. It was simply a redistribution of the wealth. Unfair to the wealthy? Sure. It has always been true, and will always be true that when the divide between the haves and the have nots grows too great, change is imminent. Is it better done through evolution rather than revolution? I prefer elections. At least within the constraints of our current system, the haves still have most of the control of the process. Vilify FDR? I think not. I'd say he is a least partially responsible for the continued sucess of our political system, whether we like it or not.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I have no problem paying taxes to, in part, assist those who cannot help themselves. To me that is the American way. BUT, when the federal government is proposing to, for example, subsidize daycare (and not just for the truly poor, either) that's when I say enough! Let me get this straight: I am going to be paying for my neighbor's baby sitter?!
There should be some limits here....
Added: On the have vs. have nots, a less encumbered capitalistic system will "lift all boats" - Also, why must every one be nearly "equal" - Such a goal destroys incentive to move up (economically and socially) 'cause everyone is at nearly the same level (however defined) so where is there to go? Over 60% of Americans own stock in their 401ks or similar retirement plans. So much for the class warfare a certain presidential candidate is trying to drum up.
Ok, I'll stop ranting....
Lincoln Wheats (1909 - 1958) Basic Set - Always Interested in Upgrading!
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Coppernicus, today the Feds subsidize daycare. The rich and the poor get great deals, but the middle class doesn't. Surprise surprise.
The previous comments were worthless blather which has already been responded too.
The final comment is laughable at best. Success of the present political system? So in essence you enjoy being dictated to and having NO SAY in whatever happens. The political system as it stands has made voting a joke . In fact if voting at this point could make any changes at all , it would be illegal.
And as far as the "will of the majority", I have to comment on that totally ignorant statement. This is your rendition of Freedom bud? So in other words if 51% of the so called majority has decided to scrap what's left of the Constitution and even further dictate to the masses what they can do, what they should think and say, how much of their lives they should give up, can the other 49% be considered free?
You're part of the problem . Stop being part of the problem.
TP
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Ok, I'll stop ranting.... >>
You're not ranting Mike. And you're having no problem paying taxes to those interests are great. But now comes the underlying principle of socialism does it not and that is "force". Do you think that everyone should be forced to pay this money from their earnings to support what you have no problem with?
What if I were to say that I have no problem paying taxes so as to build another military complex large enough to support razing other countries who don't "think" the way I would like them to think. And if I were to have enough political clout to get that signed into law which would the require you to pay for it, despite your strong objections to it ( pick any subject, interest). Are you a free man?
What "was" the essence, spirit AND letter of the founders?
We're at a higher level of taxation that what is current in communist China and Vietnam. Bet not many people are even aware of that fact. So in response to your statement that "we still have a lot of freedoms" I would have to counter with not really in comparison to where we were, and certainly the direction we're headed in is either bankruprcy, or an even further erosion of freedom. The debt is now over 7 trillion and it's not coming down and they are going to collect it one way or another.
Now comes the pivotal question and that is, who are the political figures who started this and if you agree with the premise of Freedom as it was in the beginning, and which coin most poorly illustrates the figure, idea and concept that is most counter to those ideals and principles.
I say that you can't have varying degrees of freedom. You are either free or you have varying degrees of slavery. We're about 50/50 at this point ( unless you've got a real good accountant)
Rgrds
TP
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Thanks for the consideration.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Roosevelt is the worst. On the "ideas" of America and liberty he and his clan were statist, big government socialists and from a numismatic perspective, a crappy design.
It should have been moved to the open forum immediately after this, the first post of the thread. My advice: when you're finished reading a book take some time to digest it, reflect on it, consider alternate views etc rather than immediately quoting it as gospel and referring to those with varying opinions as "ignorant" or "idiots".
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
How can people possibly justify theft? And just because it's done with the power of the State doesn't make it right. Nor does majority rule make might right. How is it ethical to rob Peter to pay Paul?
I doubt many of you have seen the results of the most comprehensive socialist test ever: the Soviet Union. I have. I've been there. It's an awesome sight to see a total lack of goods available for sale, a total lack of color anywhere in the cities (save for the building-size paintings of soldiers and citizens doing everything for their homeland--the State). Infrequent lines 2 miles long, whenever anything of value comes up for sale. Streets empty of cars except for those owned by government-connected people. A tax level so high (100%) that people don't know what taxes were--they argued that there were no taxes under communism!!!!!! People starving because of misallocation of resources. A total lack of rule of law. No private property rights. No personal rights.
Sound familiar? It's here in America already and people don't even notice. Like quicksand--you don't notice until you're already trapped.
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
Rather, as I've alluded to in my signature line, I place my hope in faith in God. Our Creator has unlimited power, and will protect His people in times of need. It's better to have faith in God than to place that hope in people or political and civil institutions created and controlled by man. Hence, I'm not worried about anything, including the downward trend that our country has been taking for well over 100 years.
What I find particularly interesting is that none of this socialism, this theft, etc is new. There's nothing new under the sun. We were warned about the dangers and atrocities commited by a large government not only by our recent Founding Fathers, but many thousands of years ago by Samuel, who, when asked by the Israelites for a king, responded that it was against God's will to have a king because if God had wanted people to have a king, He would have given them one. Instead, He gave them a set of rules to live by. Samuel reminded them that the people were rebelling against God's rule by demanding a king, and warned them what a king would do to them: steal their money and property, send them to fight wars, kill them and take their wives and daughters, etc. Do you see how we never learn? We're a "stiff-necked people". Unfortunately.
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
Hey and you should go there if that's where you want to be. But no you insist on coming back and whining. Stop whining!
And maybe YOU should consider reading things like "Common Sense", Dec of Independence, the Contitution and seeing what percentages of those you comprehend and what you don't especially with regards to where this country is , was, and what direction it's going in so you can reply to what the thread's idea was/is to begin with.
Looks like this thread is one of the most visited on the while forum BTW.
TP
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Let me think......where this country was. We appropriated a continent from the native population, covered with old growth forests, naval stores, prime farmland, minerals, oil, and wildlife. We broke every treaty we signed with that population, and interned them on reservations. We farmed it with slaves. Of course we didn't let the poor, minorities, or women vote. We enjoyed ownership of the natural resources of this new nation during the industrial revolution. The captains of industry were so sucessful that regulations were required to prevent predatory trade practices. Ah, the good old days when we were free. Who needs a social conscience. It's every man for themselves.
Honestly, I don't know how you can live with yourself. You need to make a genuine gesture of repentance to the native population and collecting Sacagewa dollars won't get the job done. You need to find a native family and sign over the deed to your home. True compassion and justice demands nothing less.
<< <i>
<< <i>Let me think......where this country was. We appropriated a continent from the native population, covered with old growth forests, naval stores, prime farmland, minerals, oil, and wildlife. We broke every treaty we signed with that population, and interned them on reservations. We farmed it with slaves. Of course we didn't let the poor, minorities, or women vote. We enjoyed ownership of the natural resources of this new nation during the industrial revolution. The captains of industry were so sucessful that regulations were required to prevent predatory trade practices. Ah, the good old days when we were free. Who needs a social conscience. It's every man for themselves.
Honestly, I don't know how you can live with yourself. You need to make a genuine gesture of repentance to the native population and collecting Sacagewa dollars won't get the job done. You need to find a native family and sign over the deed to your home. True compassion and justice demands nothing less. >>
Bingo. You ever notice these types who have no clue as to what factual history is, yet bash Amerixa while supporting and actually praying for "everyone else" to pay for their own shallow interests?
Then there's the one who thinks this should be on an "open forum" when in fact they totally missed the point ( made several times, and not that it should even need to be made in the first place) how this is directly tied to the study of Numismatics.
Laughable at best......pathetic really.
Rgrds
TP
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Repent? No, I'll just whitewash our early history, repackage it, and use it to promote my concept of why I shouldn't pay tax.
Hahahahaha how pathetic
TP
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
I understood the point of this thread as soon as you started crusading against "Roosevelt the Communist" under the guise of discussing his portrait on a dime.
It's pointless to discuss it, you're about as open minded as Joe McCarthy - and I consider myself to be a Libertarian.
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
<< <i>Then there's the one who thinks this should be on an "open forum" when in fact they totally missed the point
I understood the point of this thread as soon as you started crusading against "Roosevelt the Communist" under the guise of discussing his portrait on a dime.
It's pointless to discuss it, you're about as open minded as Joe McCarthy - and I consider myself to be a Libertarian. >>
So stop trying to! You obviously have comprehension problems then.
And you are definitely no Libertarian.
TP
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Sorry for the rant, but as a student of policy, I find these exchanges infuriating (but irresistible) to read. There are entirely too many factual inaccuracies to even begin to unravel it all.
-Jay
e-mail me here
WINNER:
POTD 8-30-05 (awarded by dthigpen)
POTD 9-8-05 (awarded by gsaguy)
GSAGUY Slam 12-10-04
Good luck.
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
<< <i>If being Libertarian means endorsing a purely Capitalist system whereby starving people are doomed to die in the streets and wealthy capital holders are allowed to become feudal slumlords, then there are about 3 Libertarians in the U.S. (but a couple of 'em are in the Open Forum alone).
Good luck. >>
Thanks.
Maybe you should go to http://www.lp.org or search on Mises.org and do some research if you have to ask. Really.
TP
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Rgrds
TP
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>TP, earlier in this thread, Mr.Goldfinger said Roosevelt was hardly a socialist, and the dime isn't the worst coin design, IMO When he later said "Evidently, there's a massive federally subsidized day care program. Who knew? Roosevelt was a communist. The New Deal was socialism. We're less free today than ever before. It's absolutely staggering how many people on this board and in the country know not a thing about their own government and history, yet enthusiastically hold forth as experts on public policy. ", he was not agreeing with your posts. There's no need to thank him, and I agree, it was well said.
Oh well..
TP
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>mrearlygold, you and I have had words before, but I have to say that was great and well said. Thank You. >>
Mr dlimb2, thank "you" sir.
I don't remember having words with you. (
Rgrds
TP
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870