NationStates Jolt Archive

I have to admit this is a refreshing change from the usual "Obama is an Ebil Mozlem Socialist" rants.

Conspiracists Push 'Bilderberger' Theory (http://news.aol.com/article/bilderberger-conspiracy/382953?icid=200100397x1220307635x1201381913)

Honestly though, in the odd shot that this is somehow true, how bad can it be? Who the hell wants to control a world where the entire economy is shot to shit- besides anyone wanting to live out their Mad Max fantasies that is?

Also, on the photo list of alleged Bilderbergers is Condy and Rummy. Now can someone tell me how being part of 8 years of the biggest sodomy the United States had to endure would qualify you to be a part of a global conspiracy that's about controlling the world and keeping thing running the way you like it? Unless we're about to say the Bilderbergers are economic masochists all of a sudden.

The day think-tanks rule the world is the day I leave our new Platonian republic for the Moon.

Do people still claim that he's a Muslim?

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama has, or will, attend a Bilderberg conference, though it's more likely to be one of his administration's finance ministers. It's as fishy as a G20 or G8 meeting; I don't think there's anything inherently nutty in being critical of non-transparent meetings of representatives of powerful institutions.

Equating these groups with the Illuminati, lizard-people or the like is, rather obviously, a step too far however.

Do people still claim that he's a Muslim?

Oh yes.

Oh yes.

That's just pathetic.

Equating these groups with the Illuminati, lizard-people or the like is, rather obviously, a step too far however.

Dont be absurd. Of course its nothing like the Illuminati or the lizard people.



Its the fucking crab people.


Open your eyes, man.

The day think-tanks rule the world is the day I leave our new Platonian republic for the Moon.

You can buy a trip on a Russian ship right now.

Its the fucking crab people.

Open your eyes, man.
I'd be more worried about the Spider Babies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AB7IDw3PNI).

I'd be more worried about the Spider Babies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AB7IDw3PNI).

You guys across the pond are weird:p

You guys across the pond are weird:p

Father Ted is a classic.

Father Ted is a classic.

I have never seen it before, but I have to say, I was laughing my ass off just now at it.

Gauthier, why is Obama called "Sauron" in your signature?

I have never seen it before, but I have to say, I was laughing my ass off just now at it.
It's a great show, and I imagine the gentle bashing of the Church is right up your street.

You should also check out Black Books (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aittSiazAP0) and The IT Crowd (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VffZACvr2B4&feature=channel), the other shows by Graham Lineham, Ted's creator.

Gauthier, why is Obama called "Sauron" in your signature?

Because New Mitanni is lulz.

It's a great show, and I imagine the gentle bashing of the Church is right up your street.

You should also check out Black Books (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aittSiazAP0) and The IT Crowd (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VffZACvr2B4&feature=channel), the other shows by Graham Lineham, Ted's creator.

The bit about the 80 year old man in the clip you linked was my favorite.


Im going to have to check this show out.

I have to admit this is a refreshing change from the usual "Obama is an Ebil Mozlem Socialist" rants.

Conspiracists Push 'Bilderberger' Theory (http://news.aol.com/article/bilderberger-conspiracy/382953?icid=200100397x1220307635x1201381913)

Honestly though, in the odd shot that this is somehow true, how bad can it be? Who the hell wants to control a world where the entire economy is shot to shit-
Economic crisis allows the powers that be to take even more power and assume more control over the economy by providing them with a convenient excuse to expand their powers. This occurs throughout history, no big surprise. The bad economy is seen as the means to the end, not the end itself; the bad economy makes centralized control more palatable to the people.


besides anyone wanting to live out their Mad Max fantasies that is?

Also, on the photo list of alleged Bilderbergers is Condy and Rummy. Now can someone tell me how being part of 8 years of the biggest sodomy the United States had to endure would qualify you to be a part of a global conspiracy that's about controlling the world and keeping thing running the way you like it? Unless we're about to say the Bilderbergers are economic masochists all of a sudden.

The theory of Bilderbergers posits that the powers that be purposely caused these crises so that they can eventually use the crises as a pretext to seize even more power and control. Belief in conspiracy theories does concisely capture one truth: the world has gone to shit. It's up to you whether to take this a step farther and make the conclusion that "there's no way so many absurdly stupid things could occur by accident."

Gauthier, why is Obama called "Sauron" in your signature?
You'll notice lots of odd LotR references here and there. One of our pet trolls went to a lot of trouble to characterize Obama as Sauron and everyone who doesn't hate him with a violent passion as being his army of orcs. Seriously. And he keeps it up, too. Of course, he (the troll) more often refers to Obama as "The Dark Lord", and of course there's nothing even remotely racial about that. Anyway, it's a little clubhouse joke.

The bit about the 80 year old man in the clip you linked was my favorite.


Im going to have to check this show out.
Last summer, at least, the entire run of episodes was on Youtube.

Also, I wonder if anyone has ever tried to create a restaurant called "Build-a-Burger," where patrons could make their own hamburgers (or veggie burgers, turkey burgers, whatever meat combination you wanted). And if they did try to open a "Build-a-Burger," would the malevolent forces of Bilderberger move to shut the restaurant down?

You'll notice lots of odd LotR references here and there. One of our pet trolls went to a lot of trouble to characterize Obama as Sauron and everyone who doesn't hate him with a violent passion as being his army of orcs. Seriously. And he keeps it up, too. Of course, he (the troll) more often refers to Obama as "The Dark Lord", and of course there's nothing even remotely racial about that. Anyway, it's a little clubhouse joke.

Ah, thanks for clarifying.

I, for one, welcome our new Spider Baby overlords.

They've stuck every single conspiracy theory possible on him. You name it he's part of it.

Do people still claim that he's a Muslim?

And that he's not American.

Ah, thanks for clarifying.

I call the poster Leeroy. Check "Fort Sumter" and you'll know why.

And that he's not American.

I hear that a lot.

They've stuck every single conspiracy theory possible on him. You name it he's part of it.

I'll believe that when I see Obama take up an entire cabinet drawer in the X Files.

Also, what's up with the "FO-ORRRRRRRRRRRRRT SUM-TERRRRRRRRRR!!!"

the UN is taking over conspiracy is a common theme whenever a democrat is in office. just like zietgiest (sp) type stuff is the same when a republican is in office.

Also, what's up with the "FO-ORRRRRRRRRRRRRT SUM-TERRRRRRRRRR!!!"

The same pet troll who insisted that Obama was a giant flaming eye also incited "real Americans" to rebellion using Fort Sumter as a rallying point on the day Obama was elected.

The same pet troll who insisted that Obama was a giant flaming eye also incited "real Americans" to rebellion using Fort Sumter as a rallying point on the day Obama was elected.

Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining.

are we saying that there is no such thing as the bilderbergers?

add "conspirator" to the resume of anyone who ever gets anywhere in public life, or in bussiness either for that matter.

are we saying that there is no such thing as the bilderbergers?

No, the Bilderberg Group exists. But the idea that a bunch of people of reasonable bent and entirely differing political persuasion could even agree on a plan to take over the planet is laughable.

I, for one, welcome our new Spider Baby overlords.

Oh look, here's one now.

http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetdoom.gamespy.com/oldimages/new_classic_doom_enem_archn.gif

the UN is taking over conspiracy is a common theme whenever a democrat is in office. just like zietgiest (sp) type stuff is the same when a republican is in office.

I really can't understand the americans fearing a takeover by the UN when they're actually leading the UN and hold veto power at the Security Council. Meh. Must be that issue with anglo-saxons and governments.

(btw, it's Zeitgeist)

I really can't understand the americans fearing a takeover by the UN when they're actually leading the UN and hold veto power at the Security Council. Meh. Must be that issue with anglo-saxons and governments.

(btw, it's Zeitgeist)

that's why i put (sp) just meaning too lazy to look up spelling.

I don't understand it either. Though I don't understand those who think evil corporations run their government and are out to get them.

I, for one, welcome our new Spider Baby overlords.Mike Patton will do a beautiful job.

They've stuck every single conspiracy theory possible on him. You name it he's part of it.We'll have to name him Mr. Burns then, for now.
Doctor: Mr. Burns, I'm afraid you are the sickest man in the United States. You have everything.
Mr. Burns: You mean I have pneumonia?
Doctor: Yes.
Mr. Burns: Juvenile diabetes?
Doctor: Yes.
Mr. Burns: Hysterical pregnancy?
Doctor: Uh, a little bit, yes. You also have several diseases that have just been discovered - in you.
Mr. Burns: I see. You sure you haven't just made thousands of mistakes?
Doctor: Uh, no, no, I'm afraid not.
Mr. Burns: This sounds like bad news.
Doctor: Well, you'd think so, but all of your diseases are in perfect balance. Uh, if you have a moment, I can explain.
Mr. Burns: Well...
[looks at his watch]
Mr. Burns: [the Doctor puts a tiny model house door on his desk]
Doctor: Here's the door to your body, see?
[bring up some small fuzz balls with goofy faces and limbs from under the desk]
Doctor: And these are oversized novelty germs.
[points to a different one up as he names each disease]
Doctor: That's influenza, that's bronchitis,
[holds up one]
Doctor: and this cute little cuddle-bug is pancreatic cancer. Here's what happens when they all try to get through the door at once.
[tries to cram a bunch through the model door. The "germs" get stuck]
Doctor: [Stooge-like] Woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo. Move it, chowderhead.
[normal voice]
Doctor: We call it, "Three Stooges Syndrome".
Mr. Burns: So what you're saying is, I'm indestructible.
Doctor: Oh, no, no, in fact, even slight breeze could...
Mr. Burns: Indestructible.

Now can someone tell me how being part of 8 years of the biggest sodomy the United States had to endure would qualify you to be a part of a global conspiracy that's about controlling the world and keeping thing running the way you like it?
I'm getting tired of hearing this because those who truly believe it obviously don't know what a fucking depression is. FDR was one of the all-time worst presidents. His stupid policies prolonged the worst economic depression the country has ever seen, delayed action in Europe and the Pacific resulting in millions of innocent people being gassed and tortured to death, his taste in generals got hundreds of thousands of drafted men killed, he blamed falling crop prices on over-production in the face of widespread starvation and the list just keeps going on. If you think that Iraq was mismanaged the you never bothered to study WW2 beyond the 6th grade and what you pieced together from the plague of films and games about it. The dominant American and Soviet military philosophies of the time were to throw men at every problem the same way the American government throws money at every problem today.

You don't know hunger, you don't know desperation, you don't know jack shit about true despair. As bad as things are now they could get a hell of a lot worse. We haven't gotten to the point of soup kitchens and 5¢ apples.

And now, in spite of all he did to the country and the world, FDR is seen as something of a hero. Makes you wonder if some day Bush will get a fucking shrine. Harrison was the best thing to ever happen to the country and the office. Every president should follow his example by dying a month in.

As for the conspiracy shit, I need some more fucking proof before I'll buy it.

FDR was one of the all-time worst presidents. His stupid policies prolonged the worst economic depression the country has ever seen
I've heard lots of people say this, but I have yet to hear anyone actually provide evidence. Why don't you take this chance to be the first?

I've heard lots of people say this, but I have yet to hear anyone actually provide evidence. Why don't you take this chance to be the first?

Because there is no evidence. The right wing just cant believe that socialist programs were beneficial, so they make shit up. They also cant seem to understand the whole 'the US wanted to stay out of Europes war, so congress wouldnt have declared war on Germany or Japan' bit, so they cry about how FDR prolonged action.

Revisionist history at its finest.

Because there is no evidence. The right wing just cant believe that socialist programs were beneficial, so they make shit up. They also cant seem to understand the whole 'the US wanted to stay out of Europes war, so congress wouldnt have declared war on Germany or Japan' bit, so they cry about how FDR prolonged action.

Revisionist history at its finest.

I was watching Colbert last night, and he was talking about this with the editor of the New Republic. Many on Fox News have been saying that FDR prolonged the Depression, and the guy from the New Republic was refuting this.

What many of the FDR-doubters say is that it really took WWII to get us out of the Great Depression, which begs the question that Colbert satirically brought up. Basically, how could one round of government spending (the New Deal) prolong the Great Depression until another round of government spending (the war) was able to bring us out of it?

I was watching Colbert last night, and he was talking about this with the editor of the New Republic. Many on Fox News have been saying that FDR prolonged the Depression, and the guy from the New Republic was refuting this.

What many of the FDR-doubters say is that it really took WWII to get us out of the Great Depression, which begs the question that Colbert satirically brought up. Basically, why did one round of government spending (the New Deal) prolong the Great Depression until another round of government spending (the war) was able to bring us out of it?

Because Republicans are retarded.

I've heard lots of people say this, but I have yet to hear anyone actually provide evidence. Why don't you take this chance to be the first?

Here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/burris4.html) is a nice bibliography.

Here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/burris4.html) is a nice bibliography.

Lew Rockwell, former congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul...

Oh yeah, Ill take this guys word against the historians:rolleyes:

Oh yeah, Ill take this guys word against the historians:rolleyes:

Or you can, you know, actually read some of the books listed in the bibliography, instead of making baseless claims like "There is no evidence." It might make you look slightly less retarded, so give it a try.

Here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/burris4.html) is a nice bibliography.

Was the point of that to get me to go out and get those books, read them, and then come back and respond? I'm sorry, but as a full time student I have enough books to read without having to do your own work for you. Go on Google Scholar, JSTOR, or find a book which you own and provide me evidence beyond book titles that FDR's New Deal prolonged the Great Depression.

Also, I would like to point out that while I am not adverse to changing views on history, sources with present themselves as "the real story" behind an event, versus the previous story being simply wool pulled over everyone's eyes because of a certain agenda that historians held until such a revolutionary book could be published, are rarely trusted by me. Call me a historical conservative, but I need more compelling evidence than an author's say-so. Your bibliography is no less unbiased than the historical accounts it claimed to debunk. I need evidence.

Or you can, you know, actually read some of the books listed in the bibliography, instead of making baseless claims like "There is no evidence." It might make you look slightly less retarded, so give it a try.

The impetus is not on us to provide evidence backing up your claim. That's your job.

Was the point of that to get me to go out and get those books, read them, and then come back and respond?

The point was to show you that there is indeed plenty of "evidence" to Indri's claims regarding the Great Depression and the New Deal.

Or you can, you know, actually read some of the books listed in the bibliography,

Or I could not, because Ive heard all the claims before. And some of them were from people much smarter then this smarmy dickwad.

instead of making baseless claims like "There is no evidence."

There is as much evidence for "FDR MADE TEH DEPRESSION WORSE!" as there is for Holocaust denial. If you call that evidence, then sure, there is evidence.

It might make you look slightly less retarded, so give it a try.

Im not the one who needs to look "less retarded".

EDIT: Really, the libertarian/conservatives who try and make these claims that FDR didnt help the depression are the historic equivelent to the Young Earth Creation Scientists who claim to have proof that the earth is 6000 years old and then cry "conspirecy" when they get lol'd at.

The point was to show you that there is indeed plenty of "evidence" to Indri's claims regarding the Great Depression and the New Deal.

What you showed me was a list of books of unknown value.

Or I could not, because Ive heard all the claims before. And some of them were from people much smarter then this smarmy dickwad.

And you choose to ignore the claims just because they don't conform to your warped view of the world. Ah, ignorance is bliss.

There is as much evidence for "FDR MADE TEH DEPRESSION WORSE!" as there is for Holocaust denial. If you call that evidence, then sure, there is evidence.

There is no evidence of Holocaust denial. There is evidence, which you, for either ideological reasons or reasons of stupidity (from the posts of yours I have read, I would gather that both are reasons), choose to ignore, in regards to the New Deal.

Im not the one who needs to look "less retarded".

How ironic.

Jesus Christ, you are too fucking stupid to argue with. I'm done. Welcome to my ignore list, fuckwad.

And you choose to ignore the claims just because they don't conform to your warped view of the world. Ah, ignorance is bliss.

No, I ignored them because I, you know, know things.

There is no evidence of Holocaust denial. There is evidence, which you, for either ideological reasons or reasons of stupidity (from the posts of yours I have read, I would gather that both are reasons).

Like I said. The 'evidence' for both claims is about equal.

How ironic.

Jesus Christ, you are too fucking stupid to argue with. I'm done. Welcome to my ignore list, fuckwad.


Reported. Grow up and learn to talk with adults.

I've heard lots of people say this, but I have yet to hear anyone actually provide evidence. Why don't you take this chance to be the first?
Um, I just did. He said that we had too much food in this country when there were peope starving to death on the streets outside the Whitehouse. His New Deal programs never helped more than a 3rd of the people who qualified because helping everyone would have bankrupted the system. He had no strategic sense and his War Department was packed full of General Custers. He was a fucking mistake but he was celebrated for making the attempt. I don't know about you but trying to do good and actually doing good are two fucking different things in my book.

Um, I just did. He said that we had too much food in this country when there were peope starving to death on the streets outside the Whitehouse. His New Deal programs never helped more than a 3rd of the people who qualified because helping everyone would have bankrupted the system. He had no strategic sense and his War Department was packed full of General Custers. He was a fucking mistake but he was celebrated for making the attempt. I don't know about you but trying to do good and actually doing good are two fucking different things in my book.

Except for the fact that he cut unemployment by half. It only rose again once his conservative advisors talked him into reducing the new deal program.

Except for the fact that he cut unemployment by half. It only rose again once his conservative advisors talked him into reducing the new deal program.
He reduced unemployment with make-work government jobs. Life in the CCC was hell. You were press-ganged into planting trees in the middle of nowhere for $5 a month. That was the New Deal on unemployment. You think you could live on that while doing back-breaking labor?

He reduced unemployment with make-work government jobs. Life in the CCC was hell. You were press-ganged into planting trees in the middle of nowhere for $5 a month. That was the New Deal on unemployment. You think you could live on that while doing back-breaking labor?

Riiight. And the New Deal programs were super popular because they sucked so bad, right?

The people who would have been "press ganged" are still alive. Hell, they helped to write the fucking history. If what you say is true (its not) why arent they telling everyone about it, and why is it that only a select few conservative historical revisionists are gifted with such knowledge?

Riiight. And the New Deal programs were super popular because they sucked so bad, right?

The people who would have been "press ganged" are still alive. Hell, they helped to write the fucking history. If what you say is true (its not) why arent they telling everyone about it, and why is it that only a select few conservative historical revisionists are gifted with such knowledge?
Officially they were paid $30 a month but they only got to keep $5 while the rest went to other programs so what I said was mostly true.

When FDR was sworn in in '33 he started a series of work programs as part of his New Deal. One of them was called the Civilian Conservation Corp which took in about 500k young men and sent them off to what wer essentially labor camps. That's right folks, America had both labor and internment camps under FDR. Land of the Free my ass! Other programs included the building of new post offices and the comissioning of artists to paint murals and write plays, clearly economically stimulative activities that were absolutely essential to the nation's recovery. What would we have done without all those paintings of that grinning cripple on all those walls of those vacant buildings?

It should be noted that at no time did the New Deal programs reduce unemployment by more than a third (not half) with what could mostly be described as ditch-diggers and ditch-fillers.

Another policy from the New Deal was government price-setting on every fucking transaction. Fines and prison for even minor violations were common at first to set examples. In April of '34 a dry-cleaner was jailed for 3 months because he under-charged a customer by a fucking nickle (35 cents as opposed to the mandated 40).

And just when things seemed to be looking up in '37 and everyone was ready to declare the New Deal a success the market crashed again because of the institution of Social Security taxes without any payouts until '40.

In the end the New Deal wasn't what pulled America out of the Great Depression, it was our involvement in WW2 that dragged employment levels back up to their roaring 20's highs by 1943 and it was our bombing of potential competition during the war that sustained the boom time as long as it lasted. Also, you don't have to dig nearly as deeply to figure out that American Brass didn't know jack shit about modern combat (for the day) and their stupidity got a lot of soldiers mowed down.

You didnt answer my point. If it really was forced labor camps, why is it that only a few right wing crusaders have this knowledge?

In the end the New Deal wasn't what pulled America out of the Great Depression, it was our involvement in WW2 that dragged employment levels back up to their roaring 20's highs by 1943 and it was our bombing of potential competition during the war that sustained the boom time as long as it lasted. Also, you don't have to dig nearly as deeply to figure out that American Brass didn't know jack shit about modern combat (for the day) and their stupidity got a lot of soldiers mowed down.

So, government spending you disapprove of made it worse, but government spending to blow shit up saved us?

That makes no sense.

You didnt answer my point. If it really was forced labor camps, why is it that only a few right wing crusaders have this knowledge?
Look again. Did I say forced labor camps or just labor camps and prison camps? And it's not just Limbaugh and his wannabe parrots that know that the New Deal was a load of crap. If you ever spent any time in a fucking library instead of googling blogs you might have actually learned some of this by now.

So, government spending you disapprove of made it worse, but government spending to blow shit up saved us?

That makes no sense.
I didn't say at any point that I approved of the US government's handling of the war, I just said that the New Deal just offered a lot of false hope, make-work jobs, and price-fixing.

Look again. Did I say forced labor camps or just labor camps and prison camps? And it's not just Limbaugh and his wannabe parrots that know that the New Deal was a load of crap. If you ever spent any time in a fucking library instead of googling blogs you might have actually learned some of this by now.
Uh-huh.
I didn't say at any point that I approved of the US government's handling of the war, I just said that the New Deal just offered a lot of false hope, make-work jobs, and price-fixing.
So how did one round of government spending hurt but a second round helped?

So how did one round of government spending hurt but a second round helped?
The New Deal jobs were planting trees, painting walls, and digging holes. All of it make-work, nt much of it all that productive. The War spending actually produced shit and that shit was used to blow up countries that would have offered stiff competition without a war. That's how one kind of spending was effective and the other wasn't. I'm not going to say that either was right but Rosie was wrong to try to throw money at everything and hope it would go away. His spending programs scattershot wads of cash at anything and everything except business. He had a poor grasp of the situation.

Tell me something, do you support throwing people in jail if they undercharge by a nickle? Price fixing does nothing but distort the market. Government seldom picks winners in business (AmTrack is a good example but there are tons of others). All things considered the economy would probably be better off if government took a step or two back and let the chips fall where they may.

It is not necessary to hate Franklin D. Rosevelt to think he's a bad president. Grown-ups can do that, you know -- decide someone's policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred. Poor Rosevelt was in way over his head, and the country is in bad shape because of his stupid economic policies. If that makes me an FDR-hater, then sign me up.

I for one am tired of the non-transparent meetings and the international banking families that want to dabble in world affairs without any transparency or accountability. I am not saying their agenda is Satanic or anything beyond power but basically they are trying to control world affairs. The international banking families (Should just be called Global Aristocrats) set up most of these think tanks. I will just lay out some evidence of what I posted in another thread.

Without any conspiracy "theory", just through obvious connections, I am making my own connections just from reading through various individuals and personalities.

Jacob A Frenkel , From 1987 till 1991, he served as Director of Research at the International Monetary Fund.

Between 1991 and 2000 he served as Governor of the Bank of Israel.

He is currently Vice-Chairman of the American insurance corporation American International Group. He (was) also chairman of the Washington based economics organisation, the Group of Thirty

Now the chairman of the Group of Thirty is former Federal Reserve Chairamn Paul Volcker, who is also Chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board for President Obama.

The Group of Thirty describes themselves as "The Group of Thirty, established in 1978, is a private, nonprofit, international body composed of very senior representatives of the private and public sectors and academia."

From Wikipedia

"The Group of Thirty was founded in 1978 by Geoffrey Bell at the initiative of the Rockefeller Foundation,which also provided initial funding for the body. Its first chairman was Johannes Witteveen, the former managing director of the International Monetary Fund. Its current chairman of trustees is Paul Volcker."

Derivatives

The Group of Thirty’s groundbreaking work on derivatives, Derivatives: Practices and Principles, published in 1993 was commissioned in the 1990s just as the use of derivatives grew and began to move into the mainstream of finance. It was based on a wide ranging survey of the industry. At the time many, both inside and outside of the financial industry, were uncomfortable with derivatives activity. They saw it as complex and obscure, potentially subject to abuse that might lead to the failure of individual firms or even to a crisis in the financial system. The G30’s final report, Derivatives: Practices and Principles, recognized and addressed these concerns by explaining derivatives and their uses and by formulating and disseminating recommendations about their proper management. It is still widely read today, often being used as a textbook for students of accounting and finance and market practitioners, due to its relatively plain language. It gives a comprehensive explanation of what derivatives are, the needs they serve, their risks, and their relationship to traditional financial instruments."

Paul Vocker

After leaving the Federal Reserve in 1987, he became chairman of the prominent New York investment banking firm, J. Rothschild, Wolfensohn & Co., a corporate advisory and investment firm in New York, run by James D. Wolfensohn, who was later to become president of the World Bank.

From Trilateral Commission Website
PAUL A. VOLCKER (1991-2001) Honorary North American Chairman

The New Deal jobs were planting trees, painting walls, and digging holes. All of it make-work, nt much of it all that productive. The War spending actually produced shit and that shit was used to blow up countries that would have offered stiff competition without a war. That's how one kind of spending was effective and the other wasn't. I'm not going to say that either was right but Rosie was wrong to try to throw money at everything and hope it would go away. His spending programs scattershot wads of cash at anything and everything except business. He had a poor grasp of the situation.

Tell me something, do you support throwing people in jail if they undercharge by a nickle? Price fixing does nothing but distort the market. Government seldom picks winners in business (AmTrack is a good example but there are tons of others). All things considered the economy would probably be better off if government took a step or two back and let the chips fall where they may.

It is not necessary to hate Franklin D. Rosevelt to think he's a bad president. Grown-ups can do that, you know -- decide someone's policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred. Poor Rosevelt was in way over his head, and the country is in bad shape because of his stupid economic policies. If that makes me an FDR-hater, then sign me up.
So here's what I'm wondering. At the beginning of the New Deal unemployment was at 24.8% and the GDP was at $635 billion. During the first phase, before FDR cut spending to balance the budget under pressure from congressional Republicans, unemployment dropped to 14.2% and GDP rose to $911 billion by 1937, four years after the New Deal. In the one year where he retracted spending, unemployment rose to 18.9%. New Deal spending was renewed and by 1941 unemployment had dropped to 9.7% and the GDP grew as well.

So here's my question, by what metric are you using to regard it as a failure? In what way did it not work? What do you have that shows it didn't work?

So here's what I'm wondering. At the beginning of the New Deal unemployment was at 24.8% and the GDP was at $635 billion. During the first phase, before FDR cut spending to balance the budget under pressure from congressional Republicans, unemployment dropped to 14.2% and GDP rose to $911 billion by 1937, four years after the New Deal. In the one year where he retracted spending, unemployment rose to 18.9%. New Deal spending was renewed and by 1941 unemployment had dropped to 9.7% and the GDP grew as well.

So here's my question, by what metric are you using to regard it as a failure? In what way did it not work? What do you have that shows it didn't work?

Actually, you note it yourself - in the one year they cut back, unemployment started to spike back up.

The metric I use on this issue is the stated goal of the New Deal - the restoration of confidence in the economy to the point where the temporary (and they were supposed to be temporary, all of it save Social Security) measures of the New Deal could be eased off and laissez-faire economics restored. This goal was never attained, and modern economic thought on the issue is that these measures would never have resulted in this outcome.

However, I do not consider the New Deal a failure. There were useless make-work schemes like the CCC, but there were also amazingly successful infrastructure projects, like the Tenessee Valley Authority, that tamed the Tenessee River, and the Construction Drive, that built a Post Office in every town in America (ever wonder why they all look the same? They were all built to the same plan at the same time!).

More importantly, it weaned America off of the laissez-faire system of economics. While this had worked well in the main, it was also responsible for the worst depressions in world history, 1890 and 1928 (and there is some evidence that another one should have occurred around 1916, but was forestalled by the money received from WWI).

Capitalism is a wonderful system for the distribution and creation of wealth, but it works best when appropriately monitored and regulated. Part of the blame for the current economic situation rests on the government for failing in it's duty to do exactly that. But it was the New Deal that made such regulation palatable to the American people.

Indri, I know its hard for all of us to imagine life back when because we're all living comfortable, middle-class lives, but Knights and I seem to do a better job than you do. Let me tell you a story: you're an average American during this time. You weren't doing great for yourself, maybe you worked in Detroit at one of the auto companies. Suddenly the Great Depression comes along and you're laid off. You and a huge percentage of the rest of the working age male population are without jobs, and there are no jobs being created. Your wife might start sewing sweaters for the few pennies she can sell them for, while you and your kids wait in a soup line hundreds of people long just for a single bowl and slice of bread.

Along comes a man with a plan. He will put you and millions like you to work. Who cares if the conditions were bad? I bet they were - considering the time period, it would be tough to find work where the conditions weren't. If you go from unemployed, poor, destitute, etc. to gainfully employed with a future, I don't think complaining is going to be the first thing on your mind.

The New Deal jobs were planting trees, painting walls, and digging holes.
Building schools, constructing hospitals and laying roads was a rather large part of it, if I recall.

Building schools, constructing hospitals and laying roads was a rather large part of it, if I recall.

I went to a state park in the mountains of Virginia once, and stayed in a cabin built by the CCC. It was pretty neat.

Oh and let's not forget the Hoover Dam. What a useless piece of junk.

So here's what I'm wondering. At the beginning of the New Deal unemployment was at 24.8% and the GDP was at $635 billion. During the first phase, before FDR cut spending to balance the budget under pressure from congressional Republicans, unemployment dropped to 14.2% and GDP rose to $911 billion by 1937, four years after the New Deal. In the one year where he retracted spending, unemployment rose to 18.9%. New Deal spending was renewed and by 1941 unemployment had dropped to 9.7% and the GDP grew as well.

So here's my question, by what metric are you using to regard it as a failure? In what way did it not work? What do you have that shows it didn't work?
America got went to war in 1941, of course speding went up. Also, you should keep in mind that the price fixing didn't actually raise production, it just made it more expensive. Even Keynes knew rising prices caused by intentionally increasing costs and reducing output did not reflect the increase in a nation's purchasing power that happens when prices naturally go up.

Another thing to keep in mind was that in April of 1933 Roosevelt proclaimed that the country would drop the gold standard in favor of controlled inflation to help the country. How dropping a deeply flawed and very limiting monetary system for an equally flawed system where currency can be completely devalued helps didn't make much sense to me now or a lot of people at the time but most ate the propaganda produced by the US government and bought into this idea that inflation was the answer (just look at the wonderful things it's done in Zimbabwe). Please don't mistake me for one of those gold-nuts, I just don't think that you can print your way out of a depression anymore than you can borrow your way out.

Now some of you have brought up that there were also some good work projects during the New Deal like roads and bridges and dams and shit like that but that kind of justifiable spending doesn't excuse the waste. The New Deal was inefficient scattershot. If you want to defend the infrastructure projects that's fine but that wasn't the whole Deal. It was flawed from the start because it was rushed in its planning and implementation, it unfairly trageted entreprenurial individuals that tried to use temporary drops in prices known as "sales" to draw in more business by throwing them in jail, and it was loaded with useless bullshit that produced nothing of value. The focus of the New Deal was on creating jobs, not creating wealth. It was all about putting everyone back to work even if they didn't do anything productive.

America got went to war in 1941, of course speding went up.
Say, that's swell. My listing stopped at 1941, the year Pearl Harbor was attacked...on December 7th...

Also, you should keep in mind that the price fixing didn't actually raise production, it just made it more expensive. Even Keynes knew rising prices caused by intentionally increasing costs and reducing output did not reflect the increase in a nation's purchasing power that happens when prices naturally go up.

Another thing to keep in mind was that in April of 1933 Roosevelt proclaimed that the country would drop the gold standard in favor of controlled inflation to help the country. How dropping a deeply flawed and very limiting monetary system for an equally flawed system where currency can be completely devalued helps didn't make much sense to me now or a lot of people at the time but most ate the propaganda produced by the US government and bought into this idea that inflation was the answer (just look at the wonderful things it's done in Zimbabwe). Please don't mistake me for one of those gold-nuts, I just don't think that you can print your way out of a depression anymore than you can borrow your way out.

Now some of you have brought up that there were also some good work projects during the New Deal like roads and bridges and dams and shit like that but that kind of justifiable spending doesn't excuse the waste. The New Deal was inefficient scattershot. If you want to defend the infrastructure projects that's fine but that wasn't the whole Deal. It was flawed from the start because it was rushed in its planning and implementation, it unfairly trageted entreprenurial individuals that tried to use temporary drops in prices known as "sales" to draw in more business by throwing them in jail, and it was loaded with useless bullshit that produced nothing of value. The focus of the New Deal was on creating jobs, not creating wealth. It was all about putting everyone back to work even if they didn't do anything productive.
Show, don't tell. Show me how it's not supposed to have worked, show me what you think it did that made it a failure. I showed you the direct effects and how there was a direct correlation between its implementation and the effects, I want something more than "It was a failure because I say so," I want to see the metric you're using and I want you to demonstrate why that makes it a failure.