@@wsbnews4270honestly, it FEELS like Bush was president my entire childhood When I try to remember anything about politics, largely Obama rings more bells, as that was 8 years old to 16. More "aware" All I can say I eyewitness, is that the primaries of 2016 started the primaries of "do nothings" Bush seemed like a kid who had to run the family business 😂. I really can excuse the mountains of Freudian slips "these terrorists are working day and night to hurt our country, *serious eye contact* so are we" "I believe humans and fish can exist peacefully" "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." "I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best."
This is the voice that for twelve years the American people grew to know as an old friend in their households and lifted them off their feet, even when President Roosevelt himself couldn't
Christopher Haines Plus he wasn’t too keen on changing things for Black folks. When asked about the seven getting the military, he said, “Why should we change? We’ve always done that.” (paraphrasal) still a great president though. Sidenote: contrariwise, A. Philip Randolph talked about the presidents he’d dealt with and said Roosevelt was the best of them.
Imagine going to a car dealership one day and Trump tries to sell you on a car. Go to another dealership another day and Roosevelt tries to sell you on the same car... who would you buy the car from?
broadstreet21 this car is tremendous, you’ll love it, I love it, China wants it. Trust me, I own cars, I know cars, this car is enormous, you want this car. All the other cars are terrible, foreign cars are destroying our diesel powered cars. This car will lift us and take us from here to there.
Franklin Roosvelt, with his Mid-Atlantic accent and disability, sadly, could not get elected today. Just like there was a shift from a more intimate type of presentation on the radio to the more choreographed and non-offensive type of the 60s and 70s to the more scripted and authentic non-authentic style of Reagan that every president through Obama adopted in watered down terms, whether you hate or love Trump he clearly understands that that style would be ineffective coming from him (or he just hates it), and has pretty effectively sucked up all political and non-political attention with his more reality-show style that prioritizes attention and views over being disciplined to the point of non-existence. And it kind of works. Trump would've never become president if he wasn't as good at creating drama as he is. I know that might offend from Trump supporters, but it's true. It's genius, in a way, but not for Mike Pence, or Barack Obama. But he couldn't be them with his personality and policies. There's a reason that no one with Trump's views, despite there being dozens of House members who are just as right wing, have ever done well in a primary as a package deal. Because a person with a particular set of skills like him could be the on;y one to become the first Facebook and Twitter candidate. That being said, an establishment "deep state," as some would call it, shill with Romney-like views could win some of his supporters with his style, or some working-class white voters might shift to a more independent style if someone like Mike Pence runs and runs on Trump's platform, but gets blasted by Trump and Stephen Miller. Changing technology and media isn't guaranteed to change the political landscape if someone doesn't adopt it, but there's no going back when it does
@@Nominay When FDR took office he had control of both Senate and Congress so his 1st 100 days was fast and furious to help those like today , paycheck to paycheck and poor , Bernie would have zero chance with Mitch controlling the Senate. Even Reagan voted 4 times for FDR , his family got bailed out by what FDR , then by the late 50's and 60's Goldwater and Nixon warped Reagan and Reagan warped the GOP , last decent GOP President was Eisenhower who upheld the New Deal .
@@georgehale5133 trump did right by people especially during covid, the stimulus checks, $600 boosted unemployment, up to 18 months in rent assistance and eviction moratorium were all extremely generous and much bolder than any Democrat we've had in recent memory, but yeah we need a left wing trump
I’ve always enjoyed watching and listening to FDR’s fireside chats on TH-cam. His voice and fireside chats turned out to be America’s masterpieces for twelve years during his presidential era.
Here is the remaining part of the transcript that was somehow (very oddly) 'un-cluded' (my emphasis): "Remember that the essential accomplishment of the new legislation is that it makes it possible for banks more readily to convert their assets into cash than was the case before. More liberal provision has been made for banks to borrow on these assets at the Reserve Banks and more liberal provision has also been made for issuing currency on the security of those good assets. This currency is not fiat currency. It is issued only on adequate security -- and every good bank has an abundance of such security. One more point before I close. There will be, of course, some banks unable to reopen without being reorganized. The new law allows the Government to assist in making these reorganizations quickly and effectively and even allows the Government to subscribe to at least a part of new capital which may be required. I hope you can see from this elemental recital of what your government is doing that there is nothing complex, or radical in the process. *We had a bad banking situation. Some of our bankers had shown themselves either incompetent or dishonest in their handling of the people's funds. They had used the money entrusted to them in speculations and unwise loans.* This was of course not true in the vast majority of our banks but it was true in enough of them to shock the people for a time into a sense of insecurity and to put them into a frame of mind where they did not differentiate, but seemed to assume that the acts of a comparative few had tainted them all. It was the Government's job to straighten out this situation and do it as quickly as possible -- and the job is being performed. I do not promise you that every bank will be reopened or that individual losses will not be suffered, but there will be no losses that possibly could be avoided; and *there would have been more and greater losses had we continued to drift.* I can even promise you salvation for some at least of the sorely pressed banks. We shall be engaged not merely in reopening sound banks but in the creation of sound banks through reorganization. It has been wonderful to me to catch the note of confidence from all over the country. I can never be sufficiently grateful to the people for the loyal support they have given me in their acceptance of the judgment that has dictated our course, even though all of our processes may not have seemed clear to them. *After all there is an element in the readjustment of our financial system more important than currency, more important than gold, and that is the confidence of the people. Confidence and courage are the essentials of success in carrying out our plan. You people must have faith; you must not be stampeded by rumors or guesses.* Let us unite in banishing fear. We have provided the machinery to restore our financial system; it is up to you to support and make it work. It is your problem no less than it is mine. *Together we cannot fail.*
Thanks for this! I am teaching English (and Of Mice and Men) in Peru and it helps for them to be able to hear the supplemental material as they read along. I'm from Michigan too. I sure am missing those amazing fall colors!
@@coco65548 because they offered a job and I had already fell in love with the country when I spent a month in Cusco during college. I am back home now but visiting the family and friends I made there soon. Wonderful country!
Notice how this man said "Democrats and Republicans working together", rather than the current man in the office who uses partisanship, even during this horrible virus crisis?
This was about a week after he took office. Almost every ad in the newspapers at that time said “we gladly accept credit” regardless of the industry. That’s because every bank in the country was closed- you couldn’t get cash or draw checks. Imagine what would happen today if every bank card in the country stopped working, every ATM shut down, no loans, no withdrawals. It’s a miracle FDR prevented rioting in the streets. Meanwhile, Hitler had just been elected chancellor and the Japanese Army invaded Nanking. A momentous time in history.
This is what lacked during the pandemic. Well made and thought out communication. Every state had their prime minister or president doing live statements at some point of course, but the amount of noise on most tv channels and most importantly on the internet overtake a suboptimal communication. People grew tired of such war buttellins very quickly... It might have looked reassuring at first, but after they started contradicting themselves it didn't work anymore. Our world is fast, our communication can be, to guide us with the insights of scientific research in an evolving medical landscape like this pandemic, but if our leaders aren't, other people in search of power and influence will take advantage of those mediums faster....
its funny how all the presidents talk in the same authoritative/motivational tone. that "i have a dream" voice. FDR does it better than most though. doesn't lay it on too thick. ol DT just talks like an old alchoholic repeating everything all red faced..
Though it should be pointed out that "Transatlantic accent" is a more modern fake name for it (and the oft-heard "blend of UK/US speech" thing is false too). Actual names used in speech guides of the time refer to it as "Eastern Standard", "Good American Speech", or "Standard American" (hence why the modern prestige accent is "general" American - also known at the time as "Western Standard")
@@joonaa2751 As a matter of fact, I was born in the UK, and emigrated first to Canada as a baby and then to the US when I was a boy. Since I was taught to speak by my British parents, but have had all my schooling in Canada or the US, I speak with a quite genuine mid-Atlantic accent. People in the States say that I sound British, Brits say that I sound American.
@@MegaFortinbras In your case, the term mid-atlantic accent would be appropriate. Mixed UK/US accents can quite comfortably be classified as such. But the FDR-style Eastern Standard accent was not born through such process, and thus the term is inaccurate for it. It's just a late 19th century New York imitation of older RP (so nothing "halfway between" there), with some specific minor differences that a discerning ear will notice. Neither Margaret McLean nor Edith Skinner (the primary codifiers of this accent in teachable speech guide form) claim it to be any kind of mix.
So many people here chatting about partisanship, is in itself a division among the people. We need not destroy our unity, for if we truly do, the nation itself will crumble. Most of these horrid crimes upon the American People were born out of extremism within the parties. Which is why the only logical answer is to forge a new party that fuses the need to conserve with the need to move forward. This party should focus on the national needs rather than to constantly assist foreign nations with unnecessary payouts. Rather, we should stop these and further it into the American nation and people. This party should also realize that it is necessary to lower the salaries of government officials in order to further connect with the average American. This is not only a suggestion, but a necessary change within our nation. God Bless America, God Bless the American People!
I cannot imagine Trump delivering such plain, coherent and calm speech explaining basic economics in details to the general public. The best he could do is to deliver shape shifting empty promises that debunk themselves in the following day.
That's why there was a holiday... because the banking system was unsound. In the week after this speech, millions of Americans put their money back into the banks, and bank rushes became a thing of the past.
@@jamesduclos2545 Lack of necessary banking regulations is what made banking system so unsound. Most People don't like the word regulations & lack of regulations for banks led to invest people's saving in volatile stocks & assets which were booming in roaring 20s. That was major breach of trust even then, but in the prosperity of 20s people didn't question that. Both Republicans & Democrats were in favor of deregulation in 20s(peak of American conservatism), it wasn't until the depression that people started turning against this ultra conservative approach of Deregulating banks & Wall Street. That thinking wouldn't change till 80s until the arrival of Reagan.
Banks & businesses, farmers urgently needed capital(loan) to keep the system going. That is the basic problem with the whole gold backing, you can't appropriate immediate necessary capital to the market in time of a crisis like Great depression. Funny that you are critical of him trying to print money, but lack of printing money (what we call today quantitative easing) from Federal Reserve back then was said to be the main cause of prolongation of Great depression. It was the opinion of all most all top economists since then have blamed Fed for doing quantitative tightening instead of doing quantitative easing. If the Fed of great recession & Covid crisis did what the Fed did back then, we all will be living in a Great Depression now for the last 14 yrs.
Is there a complete collection of these chats in full that is easy and convenient to use? I have only been able to find fractions of particular speeches. I know some of them have to be paid for (although that may just be for use or duplication for rebroadcasting) but most of them are in the public domain right?
Check archive.org and possibly librivox. Those two might have them. National Congressional library perhaps, national archives. These are a few that come to mind, let us know what you find.
Roosevelt, like most elite politicians from New York and New England in his time had a Mid-Atlantic accent. A lot of these figures either exaggerated their accents, or their families lost them - and plenty of leading men and women affected these accents, no matter their background. See any Hitchcock movie where the actor wasn't low-class or not from the Midwest. Marnie is a great example, with both Sean Connery and the difference between the female lead and her elderly, lower class mother. The last public figure I can member who had one was William Buckley
The upper classes of the East Coast and coastal South imitated the habits of the English upper class from the 19th century up to WWII, hence there arose various somewhat similar accents among them. The upper-crust East Coast accent (like FDR) was then codified in the 1920's by Margaret McLean, and later by Edith Skinner in 1942 (though the latter pattern was altered in the more recent editions to be something rather different from classic upper-crust speech). It's called "Eastern Standard" or "Standard American" (hence why the modern prestige accent is "General" American instead). The terms "mid-Atlantic" or "transatlantic" are fake names not used at the time.
If this was right-wing hate-talk radio, it would have a million likes. But it is merely the guy who defeated Tojo, Hitler, and the Great Depression so it has 874.
Great man and patriot actually died working long days while his own health was failing... He also saved the banks and implemented reforms like social security...
FDR wasn't perfect (literally impossible to be so under his terms), but he was trying his best and was a man of his word and a sensible politician. He had to make a lot of tough decisions and navigated them diligently and humanely. I sympathize for his paranoia about the Japanese people, but it's a lot easier to forgive his paranoia when the Japanese violated international law through their ill-conceived sneak attack.
The greatest man of US history. Thank you, FDR. Nowadays, we can compare ex-presidents: Trump can read and write... a little. FDR could dance... a little.
trump is a bold (and polarizing) leader similar to fdr and did he not get direct financial relief to people during the pandemic when we needed it most? what am i missing? hes a republican president and still delivered more left wing results than any democrat in my lifetime
@@marlbororeds2945 Well, Trump has delivered nothing to the people, that I know of, except a tax cut for billionaires. What has he delivered except a lot of bragging? All I see is the GOP projecting (using the psychology term) all of their faults onto the Democratic party. The media showed Trumps empty podium for an hour, while they ignored a live Bernie Sanders speech in 2016. Trump lives only to see his name in the mass media every morning. That is his raison d'etre.
@@MikeSmith-fs9wh one thing he delivered was a stimulus check to EVERY single American and not just the wealthy bankers like the Obama stimulus package. the overall federal tax revenue went up by like 25 percent under the trump tax cuts plus we had low unemployment and the highest wage growth of all time, with the lowest earners seeing the biggest increases. everyone made more money, not just billionaires. federal employees were given paid paternity leave for the first time ever. Trump passed criminal justice reform and 1000s of non violent drug offenders got out of prison. he delivered for those people, alot more than any Democrat has in recent memory.
@@marlbororeds2945 Trump just inherited most of those economic wins from Obama who dug us out of the 2010 recession. Trump has no idea what he's' doing. He has never even read the duties of the President in the Constitution, as is obvious from his continuing remarks on his powers. DJ Trump can read and write... a little. FDR could dance... a little. We are just lucky Trump didn't kill more than 700K Americans with COVID by ignoring it and not doing what Dr. Fauci told him to do. Sorry, Trumpf is just the worst president of all time.
amazing..My thoughts on economics is this...there's always room for evolving...think about how much complexities people had to go thru and still kind of go thru to this day....the next step in people tapping into their unlimited money is making an economic lifestyle that is simple...and thats where i and others come in...there wont be a need for drawn out processes because the economy itself has already evolved to be more of a fun based freedom based ordeal rather than a need. We see this with the many people taking up farming and the many people understanding what some of these created economic terms are and where they came from. Now the fear or need to feel secure about materials vanishes because people are more involved in sustainability and fun and turning fun into an earning game potential...thus making this land and the fantasy we create very epic.
As much as I disagree with four terms, FDR was one of the few presidents who might deserve more than two: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, T.R., Eisenhower.
Amazing to listen to this just after reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Leadership Turbulent Times".The contrast between FDR and Trump could't be more clear!
This is due to banks not having money in their banks when everyone was wanting to withdrawal money right away which caused the banks to fail and the economy to take an even worse dive. This is where banks get a bad rep even today because people did not trust banks anymore looking at them for the cause of the economy
Because that was the crisis of that very months of 1933. It would be like if Trump was doing a fireside chat in 2020 about Covid. It would be understandable. Eh I don't wanna imagine that.
FDR is one of the best presidents US ever had. More presidents should be like him. Only he has managed to win 4 terms because people loved him so much.
Last time I checked. I can't do a back run on my Social Security or my pension or my annuity. The bank will say no if I try. So it is quite stable. I don't have a gambling problem
FDR was considered a great president because he made people feel good with his speeches - his decisions however can be debated. The New Deal did not end the depression, it merely offered assistance to those who were struggling financially - and those measures eventually came back to haunt America with the trillion-dollar debts amassed today. Some believe that the economy could have recovered under Hoover (without the massive New Deal debts), but his comparatively poor communication skill failed to assure and convince the voters.
The New Deal didn't work? I don't think so. Here is a historian rebuttal to your claims that the New Deal "failed": "There’s a history to this history. The New Deal has long been a battleground and the source of broad, ahistorical thinking. Robert McElvaine quotes Senator Mitch McConnell in 2009, who held forth on how he was “reading history” and learning that “for sure” the “big spending programs” of the 1930s “did not work.” Eric Rauchway details the history of the debate in “New Deal Denialism,” published in 2010. The idea that the New Deal was a failure is one of the most pervasive and persistent historical beliefs on the political right. But instead of arguing directly from the data or focusing on particular failures, many critics of the New Deal very strangely pivot to the assertion that the depression ended because of the war, not because of FDR’s economic, monetary, and social policies. In other words, massive government spending didn’t end the depression; it was really, really, really massive government spending that did it. This is baffling in its self-defeating logic. Several historians who responded took this up. Robert McElvaine: “What the fact that the Depression did not end until World War II shows is the exact opposite of what McConnell and Grassley argue.… It wasn’t that the policies of the New Deal didn’t work; it was that they were not taken far enough.” Eric Rauchway: “An argument that war mobilization ended the Depression is an argument that the New Deal was an effective policy, and could have worked better only by being as big as mobilization for war. Senator Grassley is thus arguing for a much bigger New Deal, not for no New Deal. If he followed his own logic, he should wholeheartedly support an enormous investment in a Green New Deal.” (Also suggestive of the idea that the New Deal didn’t spend enough is the recession-within-the-depression of 1937. Katheryn Olmsted notes that this followed a drawdown in spending by FDR that year: “The recession of 1937 proved that the New Deal policies worked, and the president quickly returned to them.”) Senator Grassley’s reference to the war ending the depression is a remarkable self-own. The only reason I can imagine for the pervasiveness of this idea among New Deal critics is that they often see military spending as appropriate federal spending, while spending to fix unemployment and provide relief is not. Maybe that’s the conversation they really want to have, but this is an odd way of getting there. The historians who replied also brought the numbers. David M. Kennedy reminds us that this was not your average downturn, but “the greatest economic shock in modern history.” Nevertheless, during FDR’s administration the unemployment rate went from 25 percent to 14-15 percent. Still high, but trend lines pointed to a full recovery even if there had been no war. Meanwhile, as Rauchway and Olmsted point out, annual GDP growth was consistently around 8 or 9 percent (1937-1938 being an exception). Trump is ecstatic these days when he sees quarters with 3 percent growth (and of course he takes full credit while his colleagues in the Senate would deny such credit to Roosevelt). Despite these numbers there’s still room for criticism; not every part of the New Deal was a rousing success, or even well-considered. Robert F. Himmelberg points out that the National Recovery Administration of 1933-1935 was “to a great extent … a license to form cartels.” But the fundamental indicators were all moving in the right direction, or had made up almost all lost ground, by the time the United States went on a war footing. But show such numbers to a critic like Grassley or McConnell and they will likely reply that things would have gone much faster if they’d been left to the market’s invisible hand. Such counterfactuals are hard to prove or disprove, but economist Christina Romer has developed models that suggest the New Deal’s intervention was decisive. Given the decimated financial sector and the lack of markets for goods, its hard to imagine laissez faire outperforming what actually took place. Especially when we have the example of 1929-1933, years in which the free and unfettered market continually failed to save the economy. But Grassley has shown how logic doesn’t really figure into many of the political attacks on the New Deal. He might not even be swayed by the opinion of conservative economist and New Deal critic Milton Friedman. As quoted by Rauchway, Friedman, for all his extreme views, was not as extreme as today’s critics when he said, “Providing relief for the unemployed, providing jobs for the unemployed, and motivating the economy to expand … an expansive monetary policy. Those parts of the New Deal I did support.” Those aspects are among the longest-lasting, and bring us to one other common thread among these historians. The New Deal should be measured not just on its gains against the depression. It had a much longer run, and created a much longer-term success: “The system of business regulation, such as that under the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the system of security benefits that emerged from the New Deal, after all, was the environment in which the American economy thrived for nearly twenty years after World War II” (Robert Himmelberg) “The policies implemented then, in particular those legislated by the Social Security Act of 1935 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, profoundly reshaped the American economy and U.S. society by creating federally-funded programs to provide essential aid to the young, the elderly, and the disabled as well as by establishing groundbreaking workplace regulations, including a federal prohibition on child labor and a national minimum wage.” (Anya Jabour) “The longest and deepest legacy of the New Deal was not its record of anti-Depression initiatives, but its transformation of the social, economic, and political landscape-creating lasting institutions that have served the American people very well, including Social Security, the SEC, FHA, and enormous reclamation projects in the South and throughout the West.” (David M. Kennedy) “Leaders of both parties understood that Keynesian economics worked; that’s why the Republican establishment adopted Keynesian economics after the war.” (Katheryn Olmsted) These points I’ve quoted at length to underscore something else about this history: It helps to ask historians. We must listen to the economists, as do all the scholars quoted here, but in evaluating past policies historians are the ones who can help us see the greater legacies and wider impact. We should hope our policymakers would be interested in that broader view." Statement and rebuttal by Eric Rauchway, Professor of History, University of California, Davis; author of Winter War: Hoover, Rosevelt, and the First Clash over the New Deal (Basic Books, 2018) "Rating: 0.1 This statement combines one near-truth (while there’s no official way of marking an end to the Depression, unemployment did not return to pre-1929 lows until the U.S. entered World War II) with a number of major untruths. The New Deal did work; economic recovery was rapid and effective by the measures we ordinarily use. During Franklin Roosevelt’s first two terms in office (excluding the recession of 1937-1938) GDP growth averaged around 8 or 9 percent per year, rates that are (the economist Christina Romer says) “spectacular, even for an economy pulling out of a severe depression.” Unemployment dropped from around 23.5 percent at the time Roosevelt took office to around 9.5 percent. The best recovery policies of the New Deal were probably bank stabilization, monetary expansion, and public works. To quote the economist Milton Friedman, “providing relief for the unemployed, providing jobs for the unemployed, and motivating the economy to expand … an expansive monetary policy. Those parts of the New Deal I did support.” I gave a rating on the true/untrue scale, but I do so with hesitation because completely aside from its component untruths, the senator’s basic argument has no relationship to the truth, either supportive or antagonistic. To be specific: the argument here is that the war ended the depression while the New Deal did not. The only reason that could be true is that in readying for the fight, Washington provided massive stimulus to the economy by hiring Americans to produce war materiel. If that is true, then it is also true that Washington could have provided similarly massive stimulus to the economy before the war, hiring Americans to produce public works: dams, bridges, roads, schools, and so forth. In other words, an argument that war mobilization ended the Depression is an argument that the New Deal was an effective policy, and could have worked better only by being as big as mobilization for war. Senator Grassley is thus arguing for a much bigger New Deal, not for no New Deal. If he followed his own logic, he should wholeheartedly support an enormous investment in a Green New Deal." Sources: Eggertsson, Gauti B. “Was the New Deal Contractionary?” American Economic Review 102, no. 1 (2012): 524-55. www.jstor.org/stable/41408783. Hannsgen, Greg, and Dimitri Papadimitriou. “Did the New Deal Prolong or Worsen the Great Depression?” Challenge 53, no. 1 (January 1, 2010): 63-86. doi.org/10.2753/0577-5132530103. Rauchway, Eric. “New Deal Denialism.” Dissent, Winter 2010. www.dissentmagazine.org/article/new-deal-denialism. CITE Romer, Christina D. “What Ended the Great Depression?” Journal of Economic History 52, no. 4 (1992): 757-84. www.jstor.org/stable/2123226. Source: historychecked.com/senator-grassley-says-the-new-deal-didnt-work-historians-have-other-ideas/
@@thevisitor135 I didn't say it didn't work - I said it did not end the depression. It was not meant to end the depression outright, it was meant to give citizens some relief so they can put food on the table. FDR managed to decrease the unemployment rate after his first year, but ran into another recession after his reelection in 1936. Unemployment spiked again. It took WWII to drive down the unemployment rate.
@@broadstreet21 The New Deal regimen did indeed ultimately recover America from the depression, when Keynesianism was drastically intensified following the declaration of war against Japan and the Axis and a unprecedented mobilization of the economy and nation occured, increasing the growth rate of America's GDP and almost eliminating unemployment, paving the way for the post-war economic miracle, constant improvement of living standards until the 1970s, and the expansion of the welfare state. And regarding the Recession of 1937-1938, it was in actuality caused by Roosevelt's attempts to impose austerity measures to balance the GDP after following Morgenthau's advice of defunding the WPA and other social programs, and unemployment already started dropping again after 1938 ended, as seen below in an article from 2010 commenting on then-President Obama's plans to stave off the 2008 Recession: "For those familiar with the New Deal, recent economic reports showing that the recovery is slowing, coupled with the refusal of the Senate to pass legislation (which President Obama supports) to extend unemployment benefits and provide additional federal aid to America’s struggling cities and states for fear of adding to the federal deficit sound like history repeating itself. In 1937, after five years of sustained economic growth and a steadily declining unemployment rate, the Roosevelt Administration began to worry more about possible inflation and the size of the federal deficit than the ability of the economy to sustain the recovery. As a consequence, in the fall of 1937, FDR supported those in his administration who advocated a reduction in federal expenditures (i.e. stimulus spending) and a balanced budget. The results - which included a massive reduction in the number of people employed by such programs as the WPA - were catastrophic. From the fall of 1937 to the summer of 1938, industrial production declined by 33 percent; wages by 35 percent; national income by 13 percent; and not surprisingly, the unemployment rate rose by roughly 5 percentage points, with an estimated 4 million workers losing their jobs. The economic downturn caused by the decline in federal spending was commonly referred to as the “Roosevelt recession,” and to counter it, FDR asked Congress in April of 1938 to support a substantial increase in federal spending and lending. Unlike the current situation, Congress backed FDR’s request, and as a result, the recovery was soon underway again. Equally important, the lessons drawn from the 1937-38 recession convinced FDR that deficit spending and monetary expansion were critical to economic recovery. In essence, the Roosevelt Administration, through hard experience, finally endorsed Keynesian economics, and over the course of the next seven years, government spending on the economy - increasingly fueled by the demands of World War II - would grow to unprecedented levels, all but wiping out unemployment (which fell to below 2 percent by 1943) and turning the United States into a global super-power in the process. Many economists agree that there is a real danger that the reluctance of Congress to pass even the modest measures of new spending called for recently will not only stall the recovery but also lead to a possible double dip recession. The lessons from 1937-38 certainly back this assessment, but unfortunately, it appears that the deficit hawks in Congress are more interested in playing on people’s fears and lack of understanding of the federal government’s role in the economy than in learning from the past. President Obama is right to back this new round of spending, but if he is to overcome the reluctance of those even in his own party to add to the federal deficit, he must do more to convince the American people, as FDR did, that deficit spending during a major economic crisis is not only necessary and right but can also lead to an extended period of economic expansion and prosperity. If there is any lesson to be learned from the years 1933 to 1945, it is surely that - just ask any member of the Greatest Generation." Source URL: rooseveltinstitute.org/repeating-our-mistakes-roosevelt-recession-and-danger-austerity/
The symptoms FDR suffered from were nothing like those of tabes dorsalis, aka late-stage syphilis. And there were no first or second-stage symptoms in the preceding years.
Fractional-reserve banking works quite well, although of course the banking system needs to evolve continuously along with all other human institutions. We can't expect the banking system to fix all macro-economic problems, such as income inequality, periodic downturns in stock value, liquidity shortfalls, etc.
me and the boys listening to the fireside chats
Amennnnn
Henlo
Hell yeah
Fr
A good way to spend your evening.
I feel like politicians should do this more often. This seems wonderful and calming.
They do through the internet and tv
@@Spongebrain97 and twitter
@@distendedmist5840 I know but I think it’s better in front of a fire by themselves.
Nah most of them are dumb, if you made them talk for long periods of time like this it would just expose how little they actually know
FDR was one of greatest presidents who ever lived.
Hard to believe that once upon a time a family sat around their radio to listen to this exact same speech as i am now
hard to believe what politicians are like now
Showed my grandpa this video he said this sentence “This man was the president my entire childhood.”.
cap
@@thehighhokage FDR was president 12 years... If you were 3 when he took office... you'd be 15 at the end.
@@thehighhokageDumbass child he was president for 12 years that ain’t cap hunni
@@wsbnews4270honestly, it FEELS like Bush was president my entire childhood
When I try to remember anything about politics, largely Obama rings more bells, as that was 8 years old to 16. More "aware"
All I can say I eyewitness, is that the primaries of 2016 started the primaries of "do nothings"
Bush seemed like a kid who had to run the family business 😂. I really can excuse the mountains of Freudian slips "these terrorists are working day and night to hurt our country, *serious eye contact* so are we"
"I believe humans and fish can exist peacefully"
"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."
"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best."
This is the voice that for twelve years the American people grew to know as an old friend in their households and lifted them off their feet, even when President Roosevelt himself couldn't
Well said xierus/
beautifully put
Christopher Haines Plus he wasn’t too keen on changing things for Black folks. When asked about the seven getting the military, he said, “Why should we change? We’ve always done that.” (paraphrasal) still a great president though.
Sidenote: contrariwise, A. Philip Randolph talked about the presidents he’d dealt with and said Roosevelt was the best of them.
He was nothing more than a pawn of the international Bankers. One of the most corrupt presidents next to Nixon.
he got bad advice from the californicators of the day
"Hoarding during the past week has become an exceedingly unfashionable past time in every part of our nation." (Love that quote)
POV: you’re here for school
Yessir
Yes
yup
sadly
@CHRISTOPHER GARCIA honestly I have no idea. I didn’t even pay attention lol
actually, I'm here doing research for a story I'm writing. Not for school, but hopefully for a career.
Just imagine listening to this live, so elegant, so soothing. It’s amazing how we go from this to a barely literate con man
Imagine going to a car dealership one day and Trump tries to sell you on a car. Go to another dealership another day and Roosevelt tries to sell you on the same car... who would you buy the car from?
broadstreet21 this car is tremendous, you’ll love it, I love it, China wants it. Trust me, I own cars, I know cars, this car is enormous, you want this car. All the other cars are terrible, foreign cars are destroying our diesel powered cars. This car will lift us and take us from here to there.
Orange man bad
Adam Levy lol boomers were born after he died
Franklin Roosvelt, with his Mid-Atlantic accent and disability, sadly, could not get elected today. Just like there was a shift from a more intimate type of presentation on the radio to the more choreographed and non-offensive type of the 60s and 70s to the more scripted and authentic non-authentic style of Reagan that every president through Obama adopted in watered down terms, whether you hate or love Trump he clearly understands that that style would be ineffective coming from him (or he just hates it), and has pretty effectively sucked up all political and non-political attention with his more reality-show style that prioritizes attention and views over being disciplined to the point of non-existence. And it kind of works. Trump would've never become president if he wasn't as good at creating drama as he is. I know that might offend from Trump supporters, but it's true. It's genius, in a way, but not for Mike Pence, or Barack Obama. But he couldn't be them with his personality and policies. There's a reason that no one with Trump's views, despite there being dozens of House members who are just as right wing, have ever done well in a primary as a package deal. Because a person with a particular set of skills like him could be the on;y one to become the first Facebook and Twitter candidate. That being said, an establishment "deep state," as some would call it, shill with Romney-like views could win some of his supporters with his style, or some working-class white voters might shift to a more independent style if someone like Mike Pence runs and runs on Trump's platform, but gets blasted by Trump and Stephen Miller. Changing technology and media isn't guaranteed to change the political landscape if someone doesn't adopt it, but there's no going back when it does
I barely registered what he said, his voice is just so soothing.
Yes!!!
I listen to these while I do homework, and I agree that his voice is super soothing to listen to. He was a smart guy. Helps me focus
This is literally the birthplace of ASMR.
We need FDR right now more than ever.
America just got done shooting down that opportunity by choosing Biden over Bernie.
@@Nominay When FDR took office he had control of both Senate and Congress so his 1st 100 days was fast and furious to help those like today , paycheck to paycheck and poor , Bernie would have zero chance with Mitch controlling the Senate. Even Reagan voted 4 times for FDR , his family got bailed out by what FDR , then by the late 50's and 60's Goldwater and Nixon warped Reagan and Reagan warped the GOP , last decent GOP President was Eisenhower who upheld the New Deal .
He was the true founder of modern America.
@@Nominay don’t count Biden out just yet he is made of sterner stuff then you realize
...and now we have him. Biden-Harris win by a huge plurality.
Oh how I yearn for a strong, competent leader such as FDR. What a steady, reassuring figurehead.
So this is what it's like to have a strong leader trying to bring the country together during a great crisis
@@georgehale5133 trump did right by people especially during covid, the stimulus checks, $600 boosted unemployment, up to 18 months in rent assistance and eviction moratorium were all extremely generous and much bolder than any Democrat we've had in recent memory, but yeah we need a left wing trump
I personally would prefer somebody who wasn't an aspirational Communist Dictator.
@@marlbororeds2945 😆😆😆
I’ve always enjoyed watching and listening to FDR’s fireside chats on TH-cam. His voice and fireside chats turned out to be America’s masterpieces for twelve years during his presidential era.
Amazing voice !!!!!.... Nobody in America talks like that anymore !!!!!!!
lets all go to jyna
the sound quality sounds like your actually next to a fireplace lmao
It was prob played on a record player so the static is from the record which I love
I'm sad that this video cut off before it finished, I was reading the transcript alongside the recording.
Same here
Here is the remaining part of the transcript that was somehow (very oddly) 'un-cluded' (my emphasis):
"Remember that the essential accomplishment of the new legislation is that it makes it possible for banks more readily to convert their assets into cash than was the case before. More liberal provision has been made for banks to borrow on these assets at the Reserve Banks and more liberal provision has also been made for issuing currency on the security of those good assets. This currency is not fiat currency. It is issued only on adequate security -- and every good bank has an abundance of such security.
One more point before I close. There will be, of course, some banks unable to reopen without being reorganized. The new law allows the Government to assist in making these reorganizations quickly and effectively and even allows the Government to subscribe to at least a part of new capital which may be required.
I hope you can see from this elemental recital of what your government is doing that there is nothing complex, or radical in the process.
*We had a bad banking situation. Some of our bankers had shown themselves either incompetent or dishonest in their handling of the people's funds. They had used the money entrusted to them in speculations and unwise loans.* This was of course not true in the vast majority of our banks but it was true in enough of them to shock the people for a time into a sense of insecurity and to put them into a frame of mind where they did not differentiate, but seemed to assume that the acts of a comparative few had tainted them all. It was the Government's job to straighten out this situation and do it as quickly as possible -- and the job is being performed.
I do not promise you that every bank will be reopened or that individual losses will not be suffered, but there will be no losses that possibly could be avoided; and *there would have been more and greater losses had we continued to drift.* I can even promise you salvation for some at least of the sorely pressed banks. We shall be engaged not merely in reopening sound banks but in the creation of sound banks through reorganization. It has been wonderful to me to catch the note of confidence from all over the country. I can never be sufficiently grateful to the people for the loyal support they have given me in their acceptance of the judgment that has dictated our course, even though all of our processes may not have seemed clear to them.
*After all there is an element in the readjustment of our financial system more important than currency, more important than gold, and that is the confidence of the people. Confidence and courage are the essentials of success in carrying out our plan. You people must have faith; you must not be stampeded by rumors or guesses.* Let us unite in banishing fear. We have provided the machinery to restore our financial system; it is up to you to support and make it work.
It is your problem no less than it is mine. *Together we cannot fail.*
Thanks for this! I am teaching English (and Of Mice and Men) in Peru and it helps for them to be able to hear the supplemental material as they read along. I'm from Michigan too. I sure am missing those amazing fall colors!
I hope you got to see it after you posted this.
Man that book was sad ;-;
why peru? just curious
@@coco65548 because they offered a job and I had already fell in love with the country when I spent a month in Cusco during college. I am back home now but visiting the family and friends I made there soon. Wonderful country!
Very encouraging..... and persuasive.
Greatest POTUS by *any* measure and along with my dad, one of the two greatest men to have lived. Thank you for sharing this!! :)
More ppl need to hear these!
Especially our younger citizens. :)
Notice how this man said "Democrats and Republicans working together", rather than the current man in the office who uses partisanship, even during this horrible virus crisis?
Geno ok liberal
@@jackscanlan1407 no, just a human being. Trump is neither conservative nor liberal. He is what normal people consider as trash.
Geno Everybody says that
This doesn't have to be much of a political conversation/debate..
Just throwing it out there...
Away.
He said "Republicans and Democrats alike" @ 4:00 . He had the courtesy to name the other party first.
Stanley deposits a $100.00 check into the bank.... "and it's gone."
FDR was a truly *masterful* broadcaster.
17 is missing from main playlist, but thanks for curating this.
Grateful for this simple language.
This was about a week after he took office. Almost every ad in the newspapers at that time said “we gladly accept credit” regardless of the industry. That’s because every bank in the country was closed- you couldn’t get cash or draw checks. Imagine what would happen today if every bank card in the country stopped working, every ATM shut down, no loans, no withdrawals. It’s a miracle FDR prevented rioting in the streets.
Meanwhile, Hitler had just been elected chancellor and the Japanese Army invaded Nanking. A momentous time in history.
Mostly a coup
This is what lacked during the pandemic.
Well made and thought out communication. Every state had their prime minister or president doing live statements at some point of course, but the amount of noise on most tv channels and most importantly on the internet overtake a suboptimal communication.
People grew tired of such war buttellins very quickly... It might have looked reassuring at first, but after they started contradicting themselves it didn't work anymore.
Our world is fast, our communication can be, to guide us with the insights of scientific research in an evolving medical landscape like this pandemic, but if our leaders aren't, other people in search of power and influence will take advantage of those mediums faster....
It's amazng that these Fireside Chats brought the whole country together around their radios. That broadcast was 91 years ago.
Something about old recordings is so amazing to me
its funny how all the presidents talk in the same authoritative/motivational tone. that "i have a dream" voice. FDR does it better than most though. doesn't lay it on too thick. ol DT just talks like an old alchoholic repeating everything all red faced..
@Thomas Paine Even though FDR himself was as aristocratic as any American could be.
Though it should be pointed out that "Transatlantic accent" is a more modern fake name for it (and the oft-heard "blend of UK/US speech" thing is false too). Actual names used in speech guides of the time refer to it as "Eastern Standard", "Good American Speech", or "Standard American" (hence why the modern prestige accent is "general" American - also known at the time as "Western Standard")
@@joonaa2751 As a matter of fact, I was born in the UK, and emigrated first to Canada as a baby and then to the US when I was a boy. Since I was taught to speak by my British parents, but have had all my schooling in Canada or the US, I speak with a quite genuine mid-Atlantic accent. People in the States say that I sound British, Brits say that I sound American.
@@MegaFortinbras In your case, the term mid-atlantic accent would be appropriate. Mixed UK/US accents can quite comfortably be classified as such. But the FDR-style Eastern Standard accent was not born through such process, and thus the term is inaccurate for it. It's just a late 19th century New York imitation of older RP (so nothing "halfway between" there), with some specific minor differences that a discerning ear will notice. Neither Margaret McLean nor Edith Skinner (the primary codifiers of this accent in teachable speech guide form) claim it to be any kind of mix.
The soothing voice with the pops of the radio is satisfying and sounds like your eating pop rocks abt listening to it
We need a sound leader like FDR today.
RIP FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT: ONE OF THE MOST ICONIC PRESIDENTS IN US HISTORY.
So many people here chatting about partisanship, is in itself a division among the people. We need not destroy our unity, for if we truly do, the nation itself will crumble. Most of these horrid crimes upon the American People were born out of extremism within the parties. Which is why the only logical answer is to forge a new party that fuses the need to conserve with the need to move forward. This party should focus on the national needs rather than to constantly assist foreign nations with unnecessary payouts. Rather, we should stop these and further it into the American nation and people. This party should also realize that it is necessary to lower the salaries of government officials in order to further connect with the average American. This is not only a suggestion, but a necessary change within our nation.
God Bless America,
God Bless the American People!
That radio static scratches my ears in a good.😊
I cannot imagine Trump delivering such plain, coherent and calm speech explaining basic economics in details to the general public. The best he could do is to deliver shape shifting empty promises that debunk themselves in the following day.
Maybe but let’s be honest Biden delivers jibber jabber and talks in circles. Tons of videos If you haven’t seen.
@@brandonbell9957 So neither are good.
Your comment did not age well.
Joe Biden😂😂😂
A sound banking and monetary system would NEVER need a "holiday" .......
And yet you provide no solution.
That's why there was a holiday... because the banking system was unsound. In the week after this speech, millions of Americans put their money back into the banks, and bank rushes became a thing of the past.
@@mikeosullivan3699 TY for your reply. So of course this now begs the question: what made the banking system unsound to begin with?
@@jamesduclos2545
Lack of necessary banking regulations is what made banking system so unsound.
Most People don't like the word regulations & lack of regulations for banks led to invest people's saving in volatile stocks & assets which were booming in roaring 20s. That was major breach of trust even then, but in the prosperity of 20s people didn't question that. Both Republicans & Democrats were in favor of deregulation in 20s(peak of American conservatism), it wasn't until the depression that people started turning against this ultra conservative approach of Deregulating banks & Wall Street.
That thinking wouldn't change till 80s until the arrival of Reagan.
@@epa2349 I pray for another wave of deregulation...
I support and will obey Franklin D. Roosevelt forever!
Top tier podcast
Top informative podcast.
A President that actually respected our intelligence. Amazing.
"We will not have another epidemic of bank failure." - 1933
4:55 the devalue of the dollar. Printing money backed not on gold but “good” assets
Banks & businesses, farmers urgently needed capital(loan) to keep the system going. That is the basic problem with the whole gold backing, you can't appropriate immediate necessary capital to the market in time of a crisis like Great depression.
Funny that you are critical of him trying to print money, but lack of printing money (what we call today quantitative easing) from Federal Reserve back then was said to be the main cause of prolongation of Great depression. It was the opinion of all most all top economists since then have blamed Fed for doing quantitative tightening instead of doing quantitative easing.
If the Fed of great recession & Covid crisis did what the Fed did back then, we all will be living in a Great Depression now for the last 14 yrs.
Is there a complete collection of these chats in full that is easy and convenient to use? I have only been able to find fractions of particular speeches. I know some of them have to be paid for (although that may just be for use or duplication for rebroadcasting) but most of them are in the public domain right?
Check archive.org and possibly librivox. Those two might have them. National Congressional library perhaps, national archives. These are a few that come to mind, let us know what you find.
Bernie Sanders is the modern day FDR. Both great Americans🇺🇸
why do old videos always have a Southern/English accent...
Roosevelt, like most elite politicians from New York and New England in his time had a Mid-Atlantic accent. A lot of these figures either exaggerated their accents, or their families lost them - and plenty of leading men and women affected these accents, no matter their background. See any Hitchcock movie where the actor wasn't low-class or not from the Midwest. Marnie is a great example, with both Sean Connery and the difference between the female lead and her elderly, lower class mother. The last public figure I can member who had one was William Buckley
The upper classes of the East Coast and coastal South imitated the habits of the English upper class from the 19th century up to WWII, hence there arose various somewhat similar accents among them. The upper-crust East Coast accent (like FDR) was then codified in the 1920's by Margaret McLean, and later by Edith Skinner in 1942 (though the latter pattern was altered in the more recent editions to be something rather different from classic upper-crust speech).
It's called "Eastern Standard" or "Standard American" (hence why the modern prestige accent is "General" American instead). The terms "mid-Atlantic" or "transatlantic" are fake names not used at the time.
Here in March 2020.
Read "The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope"
And yet he was called "A Traitor to his Class" by his peers!
omg how relevant is this today .. WE NEED THIS NOW
Do you own a radio tho
as a conservative who isn't especially fond of FDR...fair enough...
@Thomas Paine well that was uncalled for
@@jamesmccarty7738 but true
The best president of America! With his New Deal saved America economic situation and also of the European!
If this was right-wing hate-talk radio, it would have a million likes. But it is merely the guy who defeated Tojo, Hitler, and the Great Depression so it has 874.
Check out the James Traficant Letter about this bankruptcy of june 5, 1933
Great man and patriot actually died working long days while his own health was failing... He also saved the banks and implemented reforms like social security...
Amen...speak to the citizenry as equal adults all across America, then, as now.
Perfect for my homework just 👌
couldn't be better :(
Love this stuff.
Much better than the ORANGE CLOWN..
Orange man bad
FDR be like the first tiktok influencer 100 years ago LOL
FDR wasn't perfect (literally impossible to be so under his terms), but he was trying his best and was a man of his word and a sensible politician. He had to make a lot of tough decisions and navigated them diligently and humanely. I sympathize for his paranoia about the Japanese people, but it's a lot easier to forgive his paranoia when the Japanese violated international law through their ill-conceived sneak attack.
They cut off the last few moments of FDR's speech. Why? I think it was very rude!
Just learned what this is from jeopardy never heard of it before
Imagine a world where television went away leaving only the sound of life by radio. Oh, how we would be so much better off.
did you guys get sent to watch this from your teachers?
Believe it or not,back then a President spoke MOSTLY the TRUTH an there was only a few banks TOO BIG TOO FAIL
Pov: you are studying his fire-side chats
whoa! never heard any of these!
The greatest man of US history. Thank you, FDR.
Nowadays, we can compare ex-presidents:
Trump can read and write... a little.
FDR could dance... a little.
trump is a bold (and polarizing) leader similar to fdr and did he not get direct financial relief to people during the pandemic when we needed it most? what am i missing? hes a republican president and still delivered more left wing results than any democrat in my lifetime
@@marlbororeds2945 Well, Trump has delivered nothing to the people, that I know of, except a tax cut for billionaires. What has he delivered except a lot of bragging? All I see is the GOP projecting (using the psychology term) all of their faults onto the Democratic party. The media showed Trumps empty podium for an hour, while they ignored a live Bernie Sanders speech in 2016. Trump lives only to see his name in the mass media every morning. That is his raison d'etre.
@@MikeSmith-fs9wh one thing he delivered was a stimulus check to EVERY single American and not just the wealthy bankers like the Obama stimulus package.
the overall federal tax revenue went up by like 25 percent under the trump tax cuts plus we had low unemployment and the highest wage growth of all time, with the lowest earners seeing the biggest increases. everyone made more money, not just billionaires.
federal employees were given paid paternity leave for the first time ever.
Trump passed criminal justice reform and 1000s of non violent drug offenders got out of prison.
he delivered for those people, alot more than any Democrat has in recent memory.
@@marlbororeds2945 Trump just inherited most of those economic wins from Obama who dug us out of the 2010 recession. Trump has no idea what he's' doing. He has never even read the duties of the President in the Constitution, as is obvious from his continuing remarks on his powers. DJ Trump can read and write... a little. FDR could dance... a little. We are just lucky Trump didn't kill more than 700K Americans with COVID by ignoring it and not doing what Dr. Fauci told him to do. Sorry, Trumpf is just the worst president of all time.
Reminds me a little of the panic-buying of toilet paper in 2020.
History rhymes.
interesting
amazing..My thoughts on economics is this...there's always room for evolving...think about how much complexities people had to go thru and still kind of go thru to this day....the next step in people tapping into their unlimited money is making an economic lifestyle that is simple...and thats where i and others come in...there wont be a need for drawn out processes because the economy itself has already evolved to be more of a fun based freedom based ordeal rather than a need. We see this with the many people taking up farming and the many people understanding what some of these created economic terms are and where they came from. Now the fear or need to feel secure about materials vanishes because people are more involved in sustainability and fun and turning fun into an earning game potential...thus making this land and the fantasy we create very epic.
As much as I disagree with four terms, FDR was one of the few presidents who might deserve more than two: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, T.R., Eisenhower.
Amazing to listen to this just after reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Leadership Turbulent Times".The contrast between FDR and Trump could't be more clear!
Even Trump would agree with you on that.
@@broadstreet21Trump is far too in love with himself to consider the thought of
These are great
A great speaker of obvious intellect...and a gentleman. What a contrast to the bluster and vulgarity of Trumpito Humpito.
God bless the Enclave and God bless America
Kiss America Goodbye Boys...
Thanks to the creation of FDIC, we don’t need to worry about this sort of thing anymore.
Relevant
Why do you think FDR chose to make his first fireside chat about banking?
This is due to banks not having money in their banks when everyone was wanting to withdrawal money right away which caused the banks to fail and the economy to take an even worse dive. This is where banks get a bad rep even today because people did not trust banks anymore looking at them for the cause of the economy
Very possible something like this may occur soon.
Because that was the crisis of that very months of 1933. It would be like if Trump was doing a fireside chat in 2020 about Covid. It would be understandable. Eh I don't wanna imagine that.
FDR is one of the best presidents US ever had. More presidents should be like him. Only he has managed to win 4 terms because people loved him so much.
Terrific communicator
We need a Roosevelt rn
greatest president of all time
What a beautiful face I have found in this place
Never thought I would ever listen to an american president explaining the banking system to me
Last time I checked. I can't do a back run on my Social Security or my pension or my annuity. The bank will say no if I try. So it is quite stable. I don't have a gambling problem
this is my president
FDR was considered a great president because he made people feel good with his speeches - his decisions however can be debated. The New Deal did not end the depression, it merely offered assistance to those who were struggling financially - and those measures eventually came back to haunt America with the trillion-dollar debts amassed today. Some believe that the economy could have recovered under Hoover (without the massive New Deal debts), but his comparatively poor communication skill failed to assure and convince the voters.
The New Deal didn't work? I don't think so. Here is a historian rebuttal to your claims that the New Deal "failed":
"There’s a history to this history. The New Deal has long been a battleground and the source of broad, ahistorical thinking. Robert McElvaine quotes Senator Mitch McConnell in 2009, who held forth on how he was “reading history” and learning that “for sure” the “big spending programs” of the 1930s “did not work.” Eric Rauchway details the history of the debate in “New Deal Denialism,” published in 2010. The idea that the New Deal was a failure is one of the most pervasive and persistent historical beliefs on the political right.
But instead of arguing directly from the data or focusing on particular failures, many critics of the New Deal very strangely pivot to the assertion that the depression ended because of the war, not because of FDR’s economic, monetary, and social policies. In other words, massive government spending didn’t end the depression; it was really, really, really massive government spending that did it. This is baffling in its self-defeating logic. Several historians who responded took this up.
Robert McElvaine: “What the fact that the Depression did not end until World War II shows is the exact opposite of what McConnell and Grassley argue.… It wasn’t that the policies of the New Deal didn’t work; it was that they were not taken far enough.”
Eric Rauchway: “An argument that war mobilization ended the Depression is an argument that the New Deal was an effective policy, and could have worked better only by being as big as mobilization for war. Senator Grassley is thus arguing for a much bigger New Deal, not for no New Deal. If he followed his own logic, he should wholeheartedly support an enormous investment in a Green New Deal.”
(Also suggestive of the idea that the New Deal didn’t spend enough is the recession-within-the-depression of 1937. Katheryn Olmsted notes that this followed a drawdown in spending by FDR that year: “The recession of 1937 proved that the New Deal policies worked, and the president quickly returned to them.”)
Senator Grassley’s reference to the war ending the depression is a remarkable self-own. The only reason I can imagine for the pervasiveness of this idea among New Deal critics is that they often see military spending as appropriate federal spending, while spending to fix unemployment and provide relief is not. Maybe that’s the conversation they really want to have, but this is an odd way of getting there.
The historians who replied also brought the numbers. David M. Kennedy reminds us that this was not your average downturn, but “the greatest economic shock in modern history.” Nevertheless, during FDR’s administration the unemployment rate went from 25 percent to 14-15 percent. Still high, but trend lines pointed to a full recovery even if there had been no war. Meanwhile, as Rauchway and Olmsted point out, annual GDP growth was consistently around 8 or 9 percent (1937-1938 being an exception). Trump is ecstatic these days when he sees quarters with 3 percent growth (and of course he takes full credit while his colleagues in the Senate would deny such credit to Roosevelt). Despite these numbers there’s still room for criticism; not every part of the New Deal was a rousing success, or even well-considered. Robert F. Himmelberg points out that the National Recovery Administration of 1933-1935 was “to a great extent … a license to form cartels.” But the fundamental indicators were all moving in the right direction, or had made up almost all lost ground, by the time the United States went on a war footing.
But show such numbers to a critic like Grassley or McConnell and they will likely reply that things would have gone much faster if they’d been left to the market’s invisible hand. Such counterfactuals are hard to prove or disprove, but economist Christina Romer has developed models that suggest the New Deal’s intervention was decisive. Given the decimated financial sector and the lack of markets for goods, its hard to imagine laissez faire outperforming what actually took place. Especially when we have the example of 1929-1933, years in which the free and unfettered market continually failed to save the economy.
But Grassley has shown how logic doesn’t really figure into many of the political attacks on the New Deal. He might not even be swayed by the opinion of conservative economist and New Deal critic Milton Friedman. As quoted by Rauchway, Friedman, for all his extreme views, was not as extreme as today’s critics when he said, “Providing relief for the unemployed, providing jobs for the unemployed, and motivating the economy to expand … an expansive monetary policy. Those parts of the New Deal I did support.”
Those aspects are among the longest-lasting, and bring us to one other common thread among these historians. The New Deal should be measured not just on its gains against the depression. It had a much longer run, and created a much longer-term success:
“The system of business regulation, such as that under the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the system of security benefits that emerged from the New Deal, after all, was the environment in which the American economy thrived for nearly twenty years after World War II” (Robert Himmelberg)
“The policies implemented then, in particular those legislated by the Social Security Act of 1935 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, profoundly reshaped the American economy and U.S. society by creating federally-funded programs to provide essential aid to the young, the elderly, and the disabled as well as by establishing groundbreaking workplace regulations, including a federal prohibition on child labor and a national minimum wage.” (Anya Jabour)
“The longest and deepest legacy of the New Deal was not its record of anti-Depression initiatives, but its transformation of the social, economic, and political landscape-creating lasting institutions that have served the American people very well, including Social Security, the SEC, FHA, and enormous reclamation projects in the South and throughout the West.” (David M. Kennedy)
“Leaders of both parties understood that Keynesian economics worked; that’s why the Republican establishment adopted Keynesian economics after the war.” (Katheryn Olmsted)
These points I’ve quoted at length to underscore something else about this history: It helps to ask historians. We must listen to the economists, as do all the scholars quoted here, but in evaluating past policies historians are the ones who can help us see the greater legacies and wider impact. We should hope our policymakers would be interested in that broader view."
Statement and rebuttal by Eric Rauchway, Professor of History, University of California, Davis; author of Winter War: Hoover, Rosevelt, and the First Clash over the New Deal (Basic Books, 2018)
"Rating: 0.1
This statement combines one near-truth (while there’s no official way of marking an end to the Depression, unemployment did not return to pre-1929 lows until the U.S. entered World War II) with a number of major untruths.
The New Deal did work; economic recovery was rapid and effective by the measures we ordinarily use. During Franklin Roosevelt’s first two terms in office (excluding the recession of 1937-1938) GDP growth averaged around 8 or 9 percent per year, rates that are (the economist Christina Romer says) “spectacular, even for an economy pulling out of a severe depression.” Unemployment dropped from around 23.5 percent at the time Roosevelt took office to around 9.5 percent.
The best recovery policies of the New Deal were probably bank stabilization, monetary expansion, and public works. To quote the economist Milton Friedman, “providing relief for the unemployed, providing jobs for the unemployed, and motivating the economy to expand … an expansive monetary policy. Those parts of the New Deal I did support.”
I gave a rating on the true/untrue scale, but I do so with hesitation because completely aside from its component untruths, the senator’s basic argument has no relationship to the truth, either supportive or antagonistic. To be specific: the argument here is that the war ended the depression while the New Deal did not. The only reason that could be true is that in readying for the fight, Washington provided massive stimulus to the economy by hiring Americans to produce war materiel. If that is true, then it is also true that Washington could have provided similarly massive stimulus to the economy before the war, hiring Americans to produce public works: dams, bridges, roads, schools, and so forth.
In other words, an argument that war mobilization ended the Depression is an argument that the New Deal was an effective policy, and could have worked better only by being as big as mobilization for war. Senator Grassley is thus arguing for a much bigger New Deal, not for no New Deal. If he followed his own logic, he should wholeheartedly support an enormous investment in a Green New Deal."
Sources:
Eggertsson, Gauti B. “Was the New Deal Contractionary?” American Economic Review 102, no. 1 (2012): 524-55. www.jstor.org/stable/41408783.
Hannsgen, Greg, and Dimitri Papadimitriou. “Did the New Deal Prolong or Worsen the Great Depression?” Challenge 53, no. 1 (January 1, 2010): 63-86. doi.org/10.2753/0577-5132530103.
Rauchway, Eric. “New Deal Denialism.” Dissent, Winter 2010. www.dissentmagazine.org/article/new-deal-denialism. CITE
Romer, Christina D. “What Ended the Great Depression?” Journal of Economic History 52, no. 4 (1992): 757-84. www.jstor.org/stable/2123226.
Source: historychecked.com/senator-grassley-says-the-new-deal-didnt-work-historians-have-other-ideas/
@@thevisitor135 I didn't say it didn't work - I said it did not end the depression. It was not meant to end the depression outright, it was meant to give citizens some relief so they can put food on the table. FDR managed to decrease the unemployment rate after his first year, but ran into another recession after his reelection in 1936. Unemployment spiked again. It took WWII to drive down the unemployment rate.
@@broadstreet21 The New Deal regimen did indeed ultimately recover America from the depression, when Keynesianism was drastically intensified following the declaration of war against Japan and the Axis and a unprecedented mobilization of the economy and nation occured, increasing the growth rate of America's GDP and almost eliminating unemployment, paving the way for the post-war economic miracle, constant improvement of living standards until the 1970s, and the expansion of the welfare state.
And regarding the Recession of 1937-1938, it was in actuality caused by Roosevelt's attempts to impose austerity measures to balance the GDP after following Morgenthau's advice of defunding the WPA and other social programs, and unemployment already started dropping again after 1938 ended, as seen below in an article from 2010 commenting on then-President Obama's plans to stave off the 2008 Recession:
"For those familiar with the New Deal, recent economic reports showing that the recovery is slowing, coupled with the refusal of the Senate to pass legislation (which President Obama supports) to extend unemployment benefits and provide additional federal aid to America’s struggling cities and states for fear of adding to the federal deficit sound like history repeating itself.
In 1937, after five years of sustained economic growth and a steadily declining unemployment rate, the Roosevelt Administration began to worry more about possible inflation and the size of the federal deficit than the ability of the economy to sustain the recovery. As a consequence, in the fall of 1937, FDR supported those in his administration who advocated a reduction in federal expenditures (i.e. stimulus spending) and a balanced budget. The results - which included a massive reduction in the number of people employed by such programs as the WPA - were catastrophic. From the fall of 1937 to the summer of 1938, industrial production declined by 33 percent; wages by 35 percent; national income by 13 percent; and not surprisingly, the unemployment rate rose by roughly 5 percentage points, with an estimated 4 million workers losing their jobs.
The economic downturn caused by the decline in federal spending was commonly referred to as the “Roosevelt recession,” and to counter it, FDR asked Congress in April of 1938 to support a substantial increase in federal spending and lending. Unlike the current situation, Congress backed FDR’s request, and as a result, the recovery was soon underway again.
Equally important, the lessons drawn from the 1937-38 recession convinced FDR that deficit spending and monetary expansion were critical to economic recovery. In essence, the Roosevelt Administration, through hard experience, finally endorsed Keynesian economics, and over the course of the next seven years, government spending on the economy - increasingly fueled by the demands of World War II - would grow to unprecedented levels, all but wiping out unemployment (which fell to below 2 percent by 1943) and turning the United States into a global super-power in the process.
Many economists agree that there is a real danger that the reluctance of Congress to pass even the modest measures of new spending called for recently will not only stall the recovery but also lead to a possible double dip recession. The lessons from 1937-38 certainly back this assessment, but unfortunately, it appears that the deficit hawks in Congress are more interested in playing on people’s fears and lack of understanding of the federal government’s role in the economy than in learning from the past.
President Obama is right to back this new round of spending, but if he is to overcome the reluctance of those even in his own party to add to the federal deficit, he must do more to convince the American people, as FDR did, that deficit spending during a major economic crisis is not only necessary and right but can also lead to an extended period of economic expansion and prosperity. If there is any lesson to be learned from the years 1933 to 1945, it is surely that - just ask any member of the Greatest Generation."
Source URL: rooseveltinstitute.org/repeating-our-mistakes-roosevelt-recession-and-danger-austerity/
@@thevisitor135 Great job putting sources, my English teacher would love you.
@@thevisitor135 Excellent! TYVM!! :)
A man in overalls was shoveling a thing upon hearing this breaking news of men in suits doing work with his money under the mattress.
kinda wish this was more common, like how am i suppose to carea bout politics when the people it talks about feel so disconnected from the public
Bruh, FDR was gangsta as fuck.
"hwaiy" - Franklin D. Roosevelt
I hate FDR with a passion, but I credit him with inventing the podcast
Tabes Dorsalis vs. Polio
The symptoms FDR suffered from were nothing like those of tabes dorsalis, aka late-stage syphilis. And there were no first or second-stage symptoms in the preceding years.
If this guy were Trump, he'd be bragging about his ratings.
Bernie.
Yes
Total exposure of why fractional-reserve banking DOESN'T work!
Fractional-reserve banking works quite well, although of course the banking system needs to evolve continuously along with all other human institutions. We can't expect the banking system to fix all macro-economic problems, such as income inequality, periodic downturns in stock value, liquidity shortfalls, etc.
6:20, wait, did FDR just say "we**d**nesday"?
Yes, he did, why did you ask
That was me
hi ms rose's class
Bye
Can we bring him back?
...
No?
Damn it!
Shut up emo boy
He is the reason we have term limits. They already brought him back a time to many. He literally died in office duringhis 4th term. LOL