Book Review: “The Forgotten Man ” – Amity Schlaes
April 6, 2009 in Uncategorized
“The Forgotten Man ” – Amity Schlaes
ISBN: 978-0-6-093642-6 (Harper Perennial)
(from my review posted on www.amazon.com)
Well written, fascinating Chapter Two, well researched, with a few oddities, March 11, 2009
(396 pages)
Short Review: Definitely a very interesting and enjoyable book. Deals with a lot more than just the economic history of the Great Depression. Incorporates lots of historical facts, names and some figures, but manages to do so with sufficient elan and flow, that ‘readability’ remains of a very high quality. Yes, there ARE a lot of names mentioned. Some reviewers have struggled with that, and complained. But then, remember, this is not a novel, and there were indeed lots of players strutting the stage at the time. Chapter 2, “The Junket “, details the surreal meeting with Stalin, at the Kremlin, of some of our later ‘Great Leaders’. It was almost like a pilgrimage. Many of these intellectuals later became influential members of FDR’s intelligentsia. They had a massive impact on public opinion and hugely affected the American public’s perception of Stalin. This aspect of the book, for me, was very well written. Many of these pilgrims were prominent in later New Deal thinking. We ask ourselves: were they gullible? Sincere, well meaning, but naive? Absolutely fascinating. The growth of the Stalin cult, its subtle later influence on FDR, who many claim, was no great thinker or scholar, culminating in the accusation of 325 confirmed Soviet spies in FDR’s administration (as per Venona decripts), and ultimately the furiously controversial events at Yalta.
This book really does do an excellent job of showing how grotesquely distorted a view of the Soviet Union was served up to the American people. And not just for a few years, but for a couple of decades. We read how people who started having doubts, seemingly preferred to ignore those doubts, and still went along with the fairy tale. And then of course, there were the legions of dreamy idealists, who bought the whole “Soviet workers’ paradise ” story, hook-line-and sinker, and who wished only to emigrate to the workers’ paradise of the Soviet Union, and never -ever- come back to the sullied shores of corrupt, capitalistic Americay…
A hard book to put down. You kind of might end up (I did) shaking your head wearily: how is it possible that such a distorted view became mainstream thinking, and how is it possible that ‘we, the people’ can be manipulated so easily and effectively. Can it still happen today?
This book will NEVER be described as an apology of FDR’s New Deal. I have some sympathy with those who are angry that the positive accomplishments of the New Deal are glossed over. The well meaning idealism, arguably misguided at times, on the part of many of the rank and file, does not come out very well. If at all. The poverty, the despair, is not painted in depth to us. Miss Frances Perkins, secretary of Labor, first woman cabinet minister, one of my favorite characters, is relegated to a very minor role. (she gets my sympathy vote as being this book’s ‘Forgotten Woman’) But to accuse the writer of bias is too strong. I see it more as being the case that the author was more preoccupied with the economic aspects of the crisis, rather than any in depth description of the humanitarian aspect. Other books do that for us.
However, read the book, with an open mind, and draw your own conclusions.
Very topical, as we all ponder the economic future, as of March 2009. With certain politicians advocating the “New New Deal “, and returning to increased ‘Central Planning’ thinking, and a strong drift towards European style government (and hence rapidly growing government share of GDP, I believe approaching 40%) this book could hardly be in the news at a more controversial time. The subject matter is furiously relevant to today’s political debate. Especially if we are going to be told that the debate is “over “. And that the ‘winner’ is FDR and the New Deal.
Not so fast…
An easy, solid, four star. I do have some minor grumbles. The biggest one for me is the lack of numerical source notes embedded in the text. Amity does have ‘bibliographic notes’ in the back, but it’s not the same.
From, admittedly, the perspective of March 2009 the biggest oddity (and some wry thoughts) for me was the very last paragraph, on page 396. It seemed to me be a bit of an internal contradiction, from an author who spends 395 pages dissecting the many flaws and outright, expensive, failures of the New Deal. It’s open to assault, now, for sure, but I don’t hold that against the author. How times change.
“In fact, infrastructure spending is often just a nicer name for what we used to call pork. Given the depth of modern capital markets, the new Deal’s old argument that “only the government can afford this ” looks particularly weak. The New Deal edifice is solid enough, but it doesn’t form the best basis for the national future. “
Long Review: Right from the beginning, the Introduction, this book had me in its grip. The author sets us a small trap on page 5 (into which I promptly stumbled) and quickly shows her firm grasp on History. There are many, many quotes, and detailed references to contemporary events, which quickly gave me confidence that this work has been exhaustively researched. Some reviewers deny that fact, however. This is about the tenth specific FDR/New Deal book I have recently read, and the sixth I’m trying to review. I’m going to try something different this time from my other reviews: Let’s go straight to the negative reviews and comments, and summarize some of these -furiously- hostile critiques.
Arnold Kling had the temerity to post a soft spoken ‘five star’ review, and even says, very diplomatically:
“I should stress that these are my own views, and that TFM is much less prone to making generalizations and drawing conclusions. Readers with a variety of backgrounds and predispositions can appreciate the book and learn their own lessons… “
And THEN, if you read the comments (hopefully including mine) you will quickly see that all hell broke loose.
‘Diane’, bless her, says words to the effect of:
” The author has cherrypicked her information to write a history that supports her ideological bias that government intervention in the economy is always bad, conveniently leaving out information that does not support her ideology. Useful to read to find out what the anti-FDR Republican party believes; not useful to read if one desires a true history of the 1930s. “
T.Carlsen has a lot to say. And gives us -helpfully- a lot of details of his thinking. More than can be said for the many gray variants you read everywhere of “I HATED this stupid book “, with no references to the book, and no explanations why…
And Michael Emmet Brady also wades in, furiously plastering the label “libertarian economist ” on poor Mr Kling, and giving us some jargon you should look at, that I do not pretend to understand. I’m not actually sure if I am even meant to. I have some University level mathematics, and if I was pointed helpfully in the right direction, I might learn something, but that comment is for chosen insiders, the exalted ones, and excludes the vulgar plebs.
Also check out the review by Jim Powell, the author of “FDR’s Folly ” (see my review). I personally love it when busy authors take the trouble to be involved in these discussions.
In the review by Prof. CJ “The Eclectic Professor “, there is a reference to an ominous press statement by Mr Obama. I have not been able to find a link on the web to the exact wording of that statement, but do check it out, aswith my comment.
So… what do we make of all that then?
As I said, this simple fellow enjoyed the book. I found it stimulating, contained good (excellent) prose, and provided me with plenty of opportunity to see different points of view. Some conclusions I took with a pinch of salt, and I’ve read enough to be able to “filter ” the overall aspect. The New Deal to me was not ‘all bad’. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Kling, when he says:
” Readers with a variety of backgrounds and predispositions can appreciate the book and learn their own lessons… “
I’m also inclined to believe that a book that can stir such vitriolic passion against it, must have some achievement and merit. There seem to be people who are most anxious that we do NOT read it.
Diane’s comment I found singularly unhelpful. It is, however, an excellent example of a particular attitude. I would ask: Did you actually READ the book, m’dear? We seriously wonder. Forgive me for suspecting a closed mind, that would rather avoid the undoubted cerebral effort to read the book, and does so by conveniently sticking a label on it. Such an unhelpful, entrenched, boring, class warfare statement.
Thank goodness for Mr Carlsen. He not only says he doesn’t like the damn book, but he tells us WHY. He goes to some trouble to tell us WHY. His review you should read, before you buy the book. I mostly do not agree with him, but I respect him for a detailed argument.
I have replied with a comment to his. If I am missing the boat, quite possibly, please comment constructively, and let me know. Suggestions for further reading always very much appreciated.
In summary: The New Deal era was a pivotal time. What we are sailing into, as a troubled nation, in March 2009, has profound echoes from that time. My instinct is to examine every possible point of view. The debate, far from being “over ” is once again hotting up.
To reject this book, without even reading it, because somebody stuck a label on it of “ideological bias “, and “untrue history “, and describes it as a prop for the “anti-FDR Republican party “, to me, would be a great pity.
But such are the odd, polarized polemics of Amazon. Watch the “unhelpful ” votes descend on this -perfectly honest- review, from a simple chap trying hard to understand our History, and be open-minded!
Peace. Enjoy the read.
F.M.
Book Review; Rethinking the Great Depression – Gene Smiley
April 6, 2009 in Book Reviews
“Rethinking the Great Depression” – Gene Smiley
ISBN-13: 978-1-56663-471-7
(from my review posted on www.amazon.com)
(163 pages)
Short review: a strong three star. Could have been a four star but for some minor flaws detailed below.
The title is ambiguous, and some of the other reviews were a bit vague. I didn’t really know what to expect.
Maybe you can think of it as: “Rethinking the facts of the great depression in objective economic terms”. This is overwhelmingly a work on economic history.
It does not delve searchingly deep into personalities. There are no side anecdotes. The ebb and flow of FDR manipulative intrigues and all the party politics is dealt with only in so far as when it sheds light on the economic results. Little is said about the run up to World War 2, and the scheming side of the entry in World War 2 is not even mentioned. Nor does it paint any intense emotional pictures of human suffering during the depression. It’s mostly purely economics. Who did what. What were their aims? Did they achieve those aims? If not, why not? Having said all that, to a degree, therein lies the charm of this book. It took me a while to get into it, (the book gets better as you go along) but then I started to appreciate this aspect: it was giving me a good, solid, overview of the main points of the economic policy considerations. I was able to test the depth of my own knowledge, and assess my own areas of shortfall in knowledge. I have read fairly widely on the period, and some aspects I was well familiar with. Other parts though clearly showed up my weaknesses, and particular areas of lack of knowledge and understanding I need to address. Of solid help to me were the detailed references to the gold standard, and the flow of gold around the globe at various stages of the crisis. And I liked the way he dealt with the ubiquitous industrial codes of fair competition, and the (massive) attempted price and production controls. That was a huge experiment for the New Deal. I really can’t see from this, and many other books, how politicians today can reasonably argue that FDR’s New Deal (and the NRA especially), was a terrific succes, and should be copied by Mr Obama. (No wonder the whole sorry mess drove General Johnson to drink) The blurb on the cover talks about this book being written for “lay people” and “clear, non-technical prose”. That may be so, but I would caution that said “lay reader” had better be really interested in the theory and application of economics during the Great Depression. Some of it gets quite technical, and you had better love numbers and statistics. See below for some quotes, which will give you a taster. Think of a pretty decent, but dry wine.
Long review: I am glad I bought it, and I know I shall refer back to it quite a bit from time to time. I do have some issues with it though. The prose is adequate, although somewhat humorless. I respect Mr Smiley as an excellent economist, who knows his subject intimately. However, I can’t imagine him being the life and soul of the party, or enjoying himself dancing the Conga. But would I buy his other book, “The American Economy in the twentieth century”? Yes, I would.
I do puzzle why he never -ever- uses a bar graph, or a flow chart, or other visual methods of pictorial representation. Maybe he means well, and is trying to avoid frightening away the “lay reader”. But that then leads to quite a few ‘cumbersome’ paragraphs. One example of many: (page 60)
“Prices, which had fallen slightly in 1928 and 1929, fell faster in 1930 as the contraction quickened. The All Commodities Wholesale price Index in 1930 was 9.6 per cent less than in 1929; it declined by 17.1 per cent between 1930 and 1931, and a further 11.25 per cent by 1932. The Consumer Price Index, though not declining as rapidly, feel 2.6 per cent between 1929 and 1930, 9.2 per cent between 1930 and 1931, and 10.9 per cent between 1931 and 1932. At the same time prices were falling, real production was also contracting. Real GNP declined 11 per cent between 1929 and 1930 and 5.4 per cent between 1930 and 1931. Production in the durable manufacturing sector dropped 36.3 per cent between December 1929 and December 1930, and fell an additional 36.2 per cent between December 1930 and 1931….”
Important stuff, a great bedtime read if you suffer from insomnia, but I wonder if a more general statement, with an invitation to the reader to study an associated bar graph, would not have proven more versatile.
I also would like to have seen some flow charts. I found myself doodling simple flow charts, while trying to follow his reasoning. Maybe it’s just my tiny mind, but see what you think of this paragraph, and then see if you can imagine a simple flow chart to make it easier to follow his reasoning:
(page 64) “Ordinarily such a decline in the discount rate should have led member banks to borrow from the Federal Reserve in order to make additional loans to their customers. But these were not ordinary times. Short term interest rates, such as on commercial paper, fell by about the same amount and at the same time as the discount rate. Banks did not find it worthwhile to borrow from the Federal Reserve in order to re-lend in the short-term market. Between the close of 1929 and the summer of 1931, as the economy collapsed, investment demands from bank borrowers shrank and bank loans to businesses became increasingly risky.”
Some of the author’s sharp summaries and juxtapositions I found very thought provoking:
(page 89) Whilst talking about the role of “intellectuals” and “purposeful national planning”, Smiley writes:
“The planning, as envisioned by Moley and other moderates, would be undertaken jointly through the participation of business, labor, consumer groups, and the government. In the view of Tugwell and more radical planners, the “technocrats” – technicians, economists, engineers, and other experts- would play a major role by providing advice to government officials who would direct the planning. In this way waste could be eliminated and production directed to maximize the widespread benefits of society rather than primarily aimed at enhancing the wealth and power of those who controlled the businesses in the economy.”
(page 93) “Critics commonly charged that the NRA had fostered the cartelization of many industries because of the lack of effective labor, consumer, and government representation.”
Further on down page 93, Smiley juxtapositions the concept of “cooperation with big business (such as Raymond Moley)”
with the concept of “the harnessing of big business (such as Rexford Tugwell)”
His discussion of “Why was the recovery from 1933 to 1935 so slow?” (page 96 to 103) I found very helpful.
He contrasts “recovery” and “reform”, and ends up saying (page 97): “No group received what it really wanted”.
(page 98) “The result was a frustrating mess that became worse as the months passed.”
(p.99) “In retrospect the NRA can be seen as a massive U.S. experiment with government sponsored cartelization.”
(page 100) “Thus the NRA was attuned to discourage recovery, and that is exactly what it did.”
Very interesting I thought were his comments under “Roosevelt swings to the left” (pages 106 to 111). I had not thought of it that way, as a radicalization of his thinking.
The “Depression within the depression” (1937 to 1938), is carefully evaluated (pages 116 to 132).
(page 117) “Most did not expect a depression within a depression, and certainly no one expected the ferocious decline that occurred. But the new depression brought the economy back to where it had been in 1934 and shook everyone’s confidence in the economy and the New Deal.”
Page 118 goes into the two primary causes of the contraction: the actions of the federal Reserve System, and the rapid rise in wage rates and labor costs during the great unionization drives in early 1937.
The most interesting part of the book for me was where the author attacks a very popular notion, namely that WW2 was responsible for the recovery. Many writers assume this to be the case. However.
(page 125) “By the beginning of 1940 the American economy was roughly back where it had been in mid-1937 – and still a long way from full employment.”
(page 126) “But the root of the lag in economic recovery lay in private investment, the most important component of overall spending. It allows the economy to grow…”
(page 127) “Finally in 1946, for the first time since 1929, private net investment boomed and the United States returned to full employment.’
And another quote for you:
(page 129) “Without private property rights, market economies cannot function because every transaction is really an exchange of private property rights. If the government threatens or weakens private property rights, it discourages market activity, especially private investment.”
I am also glad he has a section entitled “What confidence do we have in World War 2 economic data?”
I have been reading some strange reviews, that appear to maintain that FDR was wildly successful – period. The protagonists claim for their evidence SOLELY the GDP figures for the 1930’s. That argument is shaky, to say the least, and a quiet read of this book will show you many reasons why. (See also my review on ‘The Forgotten Man’ and my comment under Mr Kling’s review,for a repudiation of the GDP argument).
At the end of this book, I have a slight grumble. Having patiently plowed my way through endless numbers, and encountered not one irreverent joke, I finally (page 161) came to the section: “Could it happen again?”
Aha! I thought, with visions of maybe a discussion of Mr Obama’s economic policies. Given the fact that the book was copyrighted in 2002, I soon realized I was betting on time travel there. However, in the brief two pages dedicated to answering that question, the author does neatly sum up the conundrum we face today:
(page 162) “Finally, the 1930’s are not a testimonial to the fundamental problems of market-oriented economies, as some have argued. Events following World War II have shown that market societies can easily outperform managed economies. What failed in the 1930’s were governments , in their eagerness to direct activity to achieve political ends – ends that were often contradictory.
(page 163) “Ultimately, however, there are no guarantees. We must assume that the increasing wisdom of those in charge of economic policies helps them make correct decisions. A study of economic history can help us to understand what we should, and should not, do in order to promote stability and growth. But no one can guarantee that policymakers will take advantage of the lessons of history.”
As we watch Mr Obama take charge, in February 2009, we cross our fingers and remember these words.
Peace. Enjoy the read.
PS: Please ‘comment’ constructively if you feel I am missing the point somewhere, or if you feel you can point me to further useful reading material to broaden my understanding of this time period, or to correct flawed reasoning – thanks…
F.M.
Last edited by Francis Meyrick on April 6, 2009, 7:12 am
Book Review: “The New Dealers’ War ” – Thomas Fleming
April 6, 2009 in Uncategorized
The New Dealers’ War – FDR and the war within World War II
ISBN: 0-465-02465-3
Massively interesting, challenging and infuriating book, January 27, 2009
(from my review posted on www.amazon.com)
(561 pages)
Short review: Fascinating. Disturbing. Tragic. Infuriating. Heart breaking. Brilliantly written. Excellent prose. Detailed references and notes.
Long review: Covers roughly the period 1932 to 1946, and really pretty well, I hate to say it, “slaughters ” FDR and the New Dealers. Exposes the whole sorry mess. I first read this years ago, shortly after its publication, and was quickly fascinated. Fleming writes brilliant prose, acidic and witty, very gripping and entertaining. Despite all the many hundreds of names, dates, and places, and the convolutions within the intrigues and the ebb and flow of ‘soaring idealism’ versus ‘ugly realism’, vanity, and brute power politics, you can in fact almost read it as a novel. Such smooth prose. I did that on the first read. Then I recently went back, read it more slowly, and started looking up his references, especially on the more controversial topics, such as the identity of the party responsible for leaking “Rainbow Five “. There is a massive “notes ” section in the back, and if you start delving into that, well, you will be busy for months.
It always seem to me a pity when people refuse to even read a book based on ideology. That’s way too EASY, folks. Some “reviewers ” here have NOT read the book. They make ZERO reference to specific contents. It’s like they just took their cue from other negative reviewers, stuck a label on it, ( “It’s against FDR! SHAME! “)and declared it unworthy. Come now. Fleming poses us all a challenge, no matter where our sympathies may lie: “read this, and tell me where I’m wrong “. He even ENABLES HIS CRITICS, he meticulously names his sources, and objectively announces when he conjectures.
I like and respect that. He never – that I can see- presents his own hunches as “historical fact “. Several negative reviewers claim as much, but I honestly -after a careful read times two- see no evidence of that at all.
I saw some areas I thought I disagreed on, but when I checked his references, (thank you, Mr Fleming) I understood his conclusions better.
What more can you ask for? A FDR critic who is clear, well documented, and who unselfishly points you to his sources. If you are going to disagree, then that’s your privilege, but PLEASE do so by detailed references to the text, not by vague, generalized howls of outrage, that somebody could have had the AUDACITY to wag a finger at the greatest president that ever strutted the corridors of power…
This book will always be furiously hated by many. It’s that biting. Yes, it minces FDR, his policies, his personal integrity, and many of his appointees, and spits out the little pieces. His war mongering, his scheming, and the endless lies he told the American people (who overwhelmingly showed little appetite for entering WW2) , typified with his historic promise (p.78) to the mothers and fathers of America: “Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars “.
A public promise that denied the “secret commitments ” (p.79) to Great Britain?
Controversial indeed is this passage, pages (80 to 81).
And here’s one of many challenges for FDR lovers and New Deal lovers: examine this, and refute it. Tell us innocent ones why you think it’s wrong and misleading…?
“Apparently FDR saw himself and his New Dealers not merely as America’s rulers for another four years, but as her saviors from a domestic fascist takeover. The putsch rhetoric suggests FDR believed the enemy was not only beyond the oceans. They were in the midst of the nation, and they had an alarming grip on the souls of the American people. That would explain why it was necessary – and morally permissible- to lie and evade and deceive to lead the people into war against Germany. “
Strong stuff, eh? Let’s hear a reasoned, calm, rebuttal from you negative reviewers.
There are many, many interesting one-liners in this book, and much food for quiet reflection for us simple folk, the ignorant plebs, the cannon fodder, trying now, in January 2009, to get some kind of a handle of where our new, seemingly very idealistic leader is going to take us with the “New New Deal “. And his web version of the “Fireside chats “…
(p.55) “The trouble is, “, Roosevelt replied, “We seldom know six weeks in advance what we are going to do. “
(p.66) “Thus did the New Dealers “, exacerbated by their failure to revive the American economy, drift into declaring war on capitalism “.
(p.87) “Entrance into the European War will be the next great New Deal experiment. “
Many critics maintain that FDR’s grasp of History, compared to that of Churchill, never even came within a mile of the playing field. I kind of… sense that as well. Just one example; FDR’s insistence on “Unconditional Surrender ” (Churchill was aghast) is pretty convincingly shown to be the poorly thought out babbling of an uninformed, arrogant, uncaring ideological zealot.
Tragic words, a stubborn mindset, that cost… countless (millions of?)lives. A Shakespearian tragedy, bathed in blood, forgotten and/or ignored by FDR apologists today.
(page 209) “The policy of unconditional surrender, applied to Italy, had been based on the premise that it would enable the Allies to preserve their moral integrity without sacrificing military expediency. Its actual result was the loss of both. “
The Italians hesitations to accept “unconditional surrender ” allowed the Germans to pour in reinforcements, and pick the best defensive lines. The result?
(page 209) “So began a war of attrition, that would kill or wound 201,180 American and British soldiers, and leave Italy devastated. It was the first taste of the bitter fruit of unconditional surrender. “
Marvelous book. You know, I have tried, and I am still trying, and I will always try, to poke holes in his reasoning, his arguments, and his conclusions. I’m finding that part… tough going. If you are inclined to think FDR was a left wing ideologue, a bumbling power mogul, haughty and egotistical, an economic ignoramus, totally outmaneuvered by Stalin, cynical beyond words towards the Poles, ignorant about the Katyn massacre, and that he ran an administration riddled with no less than 325 (confirmed by Venona transcripts) Soviet spies then you will be comfortably at home in this book. Put your feet up and enjoy. On the other hand, if you think FDR was a great president, an awesomely inspiring war leader, a crusader for world peace, and that the New Deal was successful, and should be copied and serve as a role model for Mr Obama, then you should buy this book and use it as target practice. Its 561 pages of text (and 67 pages of notes and sources) will make a good backstop; or,joking aside, it certainly WILL GIVE YOU, in one place, a powerful, masterful onslaught on everything you hold dear. When you are finished reading all its lies and distortions, then I hope you will write “The Myth – of the New Dealers War ” as an antidote. Please dedicate it to simple bumpkins like myself, who are being grievously misled by Mr Thomas Fleming, acclaimed Historian, and author of 40 (presumably all misleading) books.
I’ll buy a copy of any book that is reasoned, calm, well thought out, and explains WHY Mr Fleming is a bonehead. But you will NOT convince me with some of these empty negative reviews that do not not quote the text. I’m always interested in the polar opposite view…
Peace. Happy reading. Be nice.
PS: Please ‘comment’ constructively if you feel I am missing the point somewhere, or if you feel you can point me to further useful reading material to broaden my understanding of this time period, or to correct flawed reasoning – thanks…
F.M.
Last edited by Francis Meyrick on April 6, 2009, 7:13 am
Book Review: “The Myth of the Robber Barons ” – Burton Folsom
April 6, 2009 in Uncategorized
“The Myth of the Robber Barons ” – Burton Folsom
ISBN: 0-9630203-1-5
Making industrial history readable – even fascinating, December 26, 2008
Great book.
It flows beautifully and logically. It deals in turn with the steamship industry, the transcontinental railroads, The Scrantons and America’s first iron rails, Schwab and the steel industry, Rockefeller and the oil industry, and “cutting taxes to raise revenue “. If, like me,you did not shine in your University days reading History, then now is the chance to catch up. The strength of this book is Burton Folsom’s genial writing style. It is easy to read, yet highly informative. He excels in bringing out the various characters as real, breathing, struggling or flawed human beings. There is a warm humanity about some of these entrepreneurs, who often risked personal and business bankruptcy.
The conclusions are not thrust upon you, like some kind of political manifesto. Rather, we the readers are afforded every opportunity to sample the evidence. And make up our own minds. There is an excellent “Notes ” section, so it makes it easy to look up references that surprise you. We are encouraged… to make up our own minds. It is hard not to come away with a great deal more sympathy for America’s great pioneering entrepreneurs.
Folsom has a gentle humor, and a fashion of understatement, which is often unintentionally hilarious. This book stays in my collection.
Some random excerpts that I have highlighted:
“Folsom draws an insightful lesson. Government aid to railroads bred inefficiency; the inefficiency raised costs and rates, and angry customers demanded government regulations; the resulting regulation promoted even greater inefficiency… “
“A lot can be learned from the story of the Scrantons. The first lesson is that entrepreneurs are needed to create wealth; when they succeed, others then have the chance to build on what they started. “
On the subject of inherited wealth, anathema to many leftist politicians, he writes:
“Only nine of the forty economic leaders in 1880 had even one son, son-in-law, grandson who forty years later was an officer of even one corporation in Scranton. In short, the fathers and sons provide a stunning contrast. “
And finally “….textbooks tend to lump the predators and political adventurers with the creators and builders. ” (p.127)
This is a book I shall be referring back to a lot…
Enjoy!
F.M.
Book Review: “New Deal or Raw Deal ” – Burton Folsom
April 6, 2009 in Uncategorized
“New Deal or Raw Deal? ” – How FDR’s economic legacy has damaged America.
by Burton Folsom, Jr.
ISBN-13:978-1-4165-9222-8 Threshold Editions
Interesting book.
This is a very well written and well researched book. A keeper.
It is not one I read cover to cover over two days. It’s more a case of reading a chapter, digesting it, cross referencing it, and then moving on. The prose, to my taste, is a little on the heavy, slightly cumbersome side. It’s not a novel. It’s not a racy read, like perhaps Fleming writes. It’s more of an economics history text book. What IS attractive is that the style is balanced, very fair, presenting BOTH SIDES of the arguments. That makes it a good research book. It avoids shrill indignation, or fatuous adulation. It is timely, with, on the one side, many advisers of Mr Obama, publicly touting some similar ‘big government spending’ policies and attitudes, whilst presenting them as excitingly new and original. That is historically simply not correct. Just read the book and see how intensely Roosevelt tried to wield the clout of Big Government. I believe this book gives a better insight into the arguments for and against the New Deal. I feel there was a well meaning idealism at work (former social workers Hopkins and Perkins et all meant well), Roosevelt indubitably (The First Hundred days, etc) was not a Coolidge, and put his back into it. But against that, this book raises again the shadow side of FDR and his policies, which today, only the true devotees choose to wholly ignore. The machinations, the sledge hammer political approach, the war on the “economic Royalists “, the “court packing ” fiasco, the cynical use of the IRS to persecute his detractors, the ‘taxpayer dollar bombardment’ of swing states, etc, etc. Many reasoned studies today attack FDR pretty furiously. Defenders of FDR mostly seem to just ignore such misguided babbling, and I’m always on the hunt for good, reasoned, New Deal apologies. However, let me say no matter which side you prefer, the extreme laissez faire minimalist Coolidge approach, or the heavy ‘beneficient hand’ of Big Government, you will find in this book many good summaries of the principle arguments, for and against.
Mr Obama himself, I suspect, knows more than some give him credit for, and is astute enough to know government stimulatory (‘anti-cyclical’)spending is a double edged sword, which needs very careful handling lest it cut the wrong way. The deficit economic theories of Keynes (who met with Roosevelt, and didn’t get along too well) have been widely challenged. Many argue against them, saying “Tried, tested…and failed “. However,others hold a polar opposite view, and argue that FDR should have spent more, not less, and that the same massive government spending today,in 2009, is the only way forward. Still others allege a common misconception exists today of what Keynes was actually saying!
However, read the book and draw your own conclusions. And enjoy, as I did, checking thoughtfully on the historic 1930’s backdrop to today’s intense economic debate. The stakes… are high.
I have a lot of areas highlighted. Some examples:
“Federal Aid encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character “.(p.77)
“This historic shift to using federal dollars for local relief profoundly changed the American work ethic ” (p.81)
“Such a system tended to make liars out of everyone involved. Governors and mayors would shed abundant tears telling Hopkins and Roosevelt of their financial hardships; Hopkins and Roosevelt then listened and pretended to dispense FERA money solely on the basis of need, not on political considerations. ” (p.82)
(p.132) “Forbes magazine protested that “a fundamental motive of the New Deal is to wage war against bigness in business. “
(p.132) Roosevelt encouraged this fight and tore into business in his State of the Union message in January 1936. He condemned the “selfish power ” and the old ‘resplendent economic autocracy’ that was fighting his ‘new instruments of public power.’ Roosevelt added, “In the hands of a people’s Government this power is wholesome and proper. But in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy such power would provide shackles for the liberties of the people. “
Hm. You can imagine the raucous cheers. These are fighting words, unquestionably encouraging a class hatred. Was that good for America? If you love FDR, and many people do, I fully respect that, then you are however faced with the requirement to face the often heard complaint that the entrepreneurial class (ranging from small to big) was discouraged from launching new business ventures and investments, and creating employment. Uncertainty undermined confidence.
Next question might be: “Did that matter? ” If you feel it didn’t matter, then I would like to hear your reasoning, and your notion of what America stands for.
I hate to say it, but if you like FDR and his policies, then you will probably growl your way through this book. Folsom does not pull any punches.
(p.133) “Roosevelt’s next step was to impose yet another tax on business – this one a tax on all undistributed corporate profits. “
(P.133) “Businessmen may have been nearly unanimous in criticizing this new tax on profits, but Roosevelt believed it was a vote-getter in November, and throughout the election year he hammered away at “economic royalists ” and “malefactors of great wealth “.
I don’t doubt it WAS a vote-getter. Good for Roosevelt. The question one might ask: Was it good for the country?
And one I really chuckled about, “With so much help from most reporters in so many areas, Roosevelt sometimes became careless in telling the truth. ” (p.228)
“So much help from most reporters in so many area ” is a criticism, no, a devastating condemnation of the impartiality/objectivity of the media at that time. Many of course make the same somber assessment of today’s trendy so-called ‘liberal’ media. Who, oddly enough, don’t seem to be alarmed at the steady non-liberal (in the old, classic sense) erosion of freedom, and the ever growing boot print of bigger and bigger central government. This book illuminates some of the cynical,manipulative origins of this insidious, ongoing process. The unethical undermining of American democracy’s (beautifully eloquent) founding idealism, and its replacement with a ‘no holds barred’, and ‘the end justifies the means’ approach to fooling and bamboozling the voting masses. (Many of whom were tragically desperate, and aching for the coming of a true savior.) How an elite, puffed up with hubris, arrogant and inflexible, dragged down the Old Jeffersonian America. If it ever existed?
But against that, I think it also shows the tragedy of good intentions, real problems, real hurt, real despair. I refuse to believe there was not a great deal of good in the motivations of many of the key New Deal players.Some led extraordinarily dedicated lives. Good did come out of it. As usual, nothing is black and white.
If you are considering this book, check out the “contents ” page. It is laid out well, very clear, and it makes it very easy to leaf back and forwards afterward and look something up.
This is an excellent read. Now I need to go read another book which is more sympathetic to FDR, and once again contrast the arguments. I’m wide open to reading suggestions. I have several more FDR books on my wish list, and I shall review them all over time. Trying very hard not to be biased, and willing to sincerely weigh all counter arguments…
Peace. Enjoy the read.
PS: Please “comment ” constructively if you feel I am missing the point, or if you can recommend further reading to illustrate positive New Deal accomplishments not properly brought out in this book.
F.M.
Last edited by Francis Meyrick on April 6, 2009, 6:46 am
Diary (8) “Challenges ahead “
April 5, 2009 in Auto-biographical
Diary(8): Challenges ahead
Sunday, April 5th 2009
Already I am enjoying new found acquaintances through the medium of the “Abbeville Writers and Poets’ Group “.
It is stimulating to respond to new challenges, and differing opinions. Duncan and I will probably debate “structure ” online, in which our philosophical nuances will come under the microscope. All good stuff.
I caution everybody that writing and creating is hard work. Incredibly time consuming. Often lonely. So is designing and running a website. So is devouring a challenging book. So is ‘thinking’, especially against the grain of mass media induced ‘trendy frenzies’…
(That’s why we need writers, and poets, and artists. Thinkers. Willing to speak out against the Federal Puppeteers, the Elite, who know -by virtue of their superiority- what is best for you and me…)
And so, too often, is life. As a helicopter pilot, I have a sixth sense of “trouble ” I think, that probably has kept me alive.
Despite some spectacular engine failures, unexpected bad weather, equipment malfunctions, the occasional bullet, and a massive, cartwheeling plane crash (see my novel, I used my experience and inflicted it upon my reluctant hero) I’m still in one piece. Thank God. I have passed 10,000 flight hours, and the more hours I keep logging, both in the concrete physical universe and in the airy, spiritual, emotional, intense universe of Writing and Thought, the more I often pause, thoughtfully. I find myself sniffing at the journey ahead, and bracing myself for the good and the bad.
I would invite you to check out some of the excellent work of Alister Flik on our site, who has been a supporter from the beginning.
Nicole Hellene has not published with us yet, but I read her work extensively on “Writers Cafe “, before it turned into a haven for cruelty and ridicule. I have never met either lasses in the flesh. Yet I partly understand their make up, their fragile sensitivity, their feelings, from their writings.
Meeting people face to face at last can be quite exhilarating. But here too we must be sensitive. There are those souls who prefer the anonymity of Cyberspace. Who will privilege us with their innermost feelings on the one hand, but who for reasons of their own, prefer to reside in a private cocoon. I respect that, and we should be respectful to artists who may not want to attend our meetings very often, if at all. Whose contributions on the site however may be awesome.
In a similar vein, don’t be fooled into thinking that a writers group meeting “in the flesh ” is always a happy place, where good cheer and compassion are always overflowing. I have seen some real hostility develop at writers meetings.
Cliques, anger, and ridicule. The sources of these troubles were varied, but often enough involved some strong personalities who exhibited a number of recognizable characteristics.
Firstly, we have writers of excellent talent, intellectually brilliant, and academically accomplished. Who are very sensitive people. Sensitive, that is, to their own feelings. From this vantage point, it is easy to fall into a risky mindset.
“I am good. I have a lot to say. Everybody wants to listen to me. I am, let’s face it, somewhat superior. Here are my pearls of wisdom. I say as follows… “
Um. Maybe, maybe not. Others may not be as educated, or verbally accomplished. But their life’s stories may be quite fascinating, albeit on an entirely different wave length.
Secondly, we have the babblers. Well meaning folk, very enthusiastic, but prone to hijacking a discussion and going off full tilt on a somewhat irrelevant tangent. Let’s say we have five people discussing the New Deal of the 1930’s and its relevance to Mr Obama’s policies. If I was to say: “This story was an interesting study of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and his many attempts at manipulation of the economy “, and somebody jumped in and said:
“I saw this juggler at the circus, who was manipulating three plastic pudding spoons and sixteen pink dishes. I have never seen anything quite like it. ” As a one-liner, I would smile. If said person went on enthusiastically about the pudding spoons for fifteen minutes, I think I might be inclined to think of a large non-plastic pin stuck in a very sensitive place…
Thirdly, we have the stirrers. These come in a multitude of shapes and forms. There is such a thing as gentle mischief making. Pretty harmless. Sometimes stimulating. A wry sense of humor. However, at the other extreme, we have the malicious ones. The judgmental ones. The ones who love a reaction. Usually they prefer the relative anonymity of cyberspace to face-to-face contact, but either way, they can be a handful to handle. I’ve seen people storm out of writers meetings in a furious temper…
I was one of those people who participated in “www. Writers Cafe ” very enthusiastically. For a while. Abby, another of our group, also was involved on that site. It went downhill. Once it got going, there seemed to be no stopping it. It got to where the words I would use to describe it would be: “ugly, hateful, obscene, sexist, cruel, sadistic and moronic “. I gave up. So did many others.
So you will see where I am going with this:
Our new group, and this website, will face challenges ahead.
We need to be prepared for that, and quietly try and sail the good ship Creative Harmony around the rugged rocks.
We can all take turns at the helm.
At the meetings:
***Let’s try hard to give everybody equal air time. In that respect, I really recommend use of the forum on this site. Post your request (like I did) for what pieces you would like to read out, (reasonably short, 5 to 7 minutes) and what you would like to have people read in advance, for later discussion at the meeting. (any length).
*** Support your fellow writer. Be on the lookout for people with great stories to tell, who are still learning the use of the writers tools. Encourage their enthusiasm. Don’t judge. Everybody has a best seller inside them.
In cyberspace:
*** Be prepared for the good, the bad, and the ugly. Be prepared for hackers who will try and maliciously crash the site.
If somebody really wants to hurt the site, it’s not hard to achieve that end. All we can do is take regular backups (make sure you do), and deal with the problems as they come along. Be prepared for the inevitable spammers trying to sell you the usual quack produce. Be prepared for hate, and obscenity. I have the tools to ‘ban’ somebody, but I would rather place them under a “mentor “. Which means the mentor has to ‘approve’ a piece before it appears on the site. Try that first.
The ability to post directly to the site (without going through approval) is a privilege and not a right, I’m thinking….
I also think we may one day end up with “families “. I have long suspected that about 50 writers is an optimum number for a “family “. Then each family can have some “wise heads ” who can also keep the creative peace.
We’ll see, eh?
I ask for your emotional and spiritual support, and your kindness.
I for one, am a guy who has burning ideas in his head, and occasionally gets to where his shoulders start drooping. Not enough time to read, not enough time to write. Is it really any good? Maybe I’m just deluding myself. Maybe I should just give up and concentrate on my career and making money. Maybe…
If you recognize those self doubts, I think you really, really belong here. As part of our little community.
I wish you peace, my friends. Inspiration. And good writing…
F.M.
Last edited by Francis Meyrick on April 5, 2009, 6:11 pm
The inverted pyramid approach to winning elections in the US democratic system
January 20, 2009 in Uncategorized
The inverted pyramid approach to winning elections in the US democratic system
Imagine if you like, a pyramid.
Imagine that it is a pyramid that represents the level of understanding of economics and history by the people.
It stands to reason that a few, select individuals, right at the tip of the top, are truly au fait with the latest and greatest thinking in modern Economics and Political History. Below them, the top 3 % of the pyramid contains folk who are highly informed. Below that, another 25 % of people who are well informed. Below that, there are more strata, each successively less informed. At the bottom…. Well.
Now imagine a society, where electioneering is honest, with no dirty tricks. No deliberately misleading statements, no inflammatory television ads, no demagogues, and no blatantly populist arguments, seeking to inflame class envy. Or worse, class hatred. And of course, no false promises…
In such a society, it is reasonable to suppose that knowledge and understanding will filter down through the pyramid. Eventually, even those who have through no fault of their own received a poor education, might understand the basic principles. That an economy of a Nation is not all that different from that of a household. That you cannot spend forever, and borrow forever, without the day of the reckoning arriving eventually. That the goods and services we all require and seek, must first be produced and provided by others. That it is good for mind and body to have a regular job, work hard, and be honest and upright.
Such a society, utopian indeed, might be a peace loving one. With inequalities for sure, but nonetheless, providing a good living for everybody.
What is the fatal weakness in this utopian portrayal?
The assumption of an ethical society. The assumption of principles and scruples held dear by the political candidacy.
I recently enjoyed, once again, reading the events that transpired during the democratic convention in Chicago in 1937.
In “The New Dealers’ War “, Thomas Fleming offers us the following two titbits.
(page 69) “In order to win the nomination for a third term, Roosevelt had to seek the support of two of the most hardboiled Democratic politicians in the country, Ed Kelly of Chicago and Frank Hague of Jersey City. Each led political machines that dominated their respective states by stuffing ballot boxes, enfranchising the grave-yards, and paying for straight ticket votes on a per capita basis, tactics that made reform-minded liberal Democrats wince and righteous Republicans sputter. ”
On page 71, we read:
“… Roosevelt arranged for Senator Alben Barkley of Kentucky, the keynote speaker, to read a letter from him in which he claimed he did not want to run and the convention was free to vote for any candidate.
As the sullen delegates tried to digest this startling statement, a stupendous voice echoed through the convention hall.
‘We want Roosevelt! We want Roosevelt! Everybody wants Roosevelt!’
The voice belonged to Chicago’s superintendent of sewers, who was in command of the loudspeaker system in the convention hall’s basement. Someone handed Senator Barkley a large portrait of the president, which he held aloft.
The galleries, which had been packed with city employees and followers of Chicago’s boss Ed Kelly, erupted with wild cheers and applause. Other members of the Chicago machine, joined by delegates from many states, swarmed in the aisles under the leadership of Frank Hague, while the sewer superintendent’s voice boomed over the loudspeaker:
‘New York wants Roosevelt! The World needs Roosevelt!’ For more than an hour, Hague, Kelly and Harry Hopkins presided over this demonstration. By the time it ended, there was no longer any doubt that Roosevelt had the nomination… “
And on page 73, we read:
“…Watching this political circus with extremely jaundiced eyes was Harry S.Truman… “
Political circus…
My point is that in the real world, the quiet logic of the argument, the reasonable line of debate, the underlying economic conundrums, the ethical nuances, are lost, hopelessly, in a sea of tribal sentiment. What happens, in effect, is that the pyramid I described above, as far as priority targeting is concerned, is inverted. Politicians do not waste time on the understanding minority. They aim their appeal at the broad base. That becomes their priority. Rather than phrase thoughtful arguments, based on economic and political history, they rain half truths, untruths, false promises, and quick, easy solutions to complicated problems. They encourage class envy, even class hatred.
You might say, where logic and sound reasoning is weak, the loudspeaker system in the basement can always compensate for any weakness by the application of more decibels…
F.M.
(c)
Last edited by Francis Meyrick on May 23, 2009, 12:13 pm
Squandermania
January 20, 2009 in Uncategorized
I had heard the term ‘squandermania’ used before in connection with exorbitant New Deal public spending.
It was therefore interesting to run across this quote in “The New Dealers’ War ” (Thomas Fleming).
(p.63)
“They also confronted a rising chorus of critics who began telling the nation the New Deal was a fraud and a failure. One of the most outspoken was FDR’s erstwhile admirer, Fulton Oursler. In ‘Liberty’ editorials, he began referring to the New Deal years as an era of “Squandermania “. Twenty two billion dollars had been wasted by “starry eyed idealists, crackpots and political heebie-jeebie boys, ‘who had tried to spend America into prosperity. “
What puzzles me is that today, January 2009, opinion polls declaim with great fanfare that varying very high percentages of the American population believe that Mr Obama will solve the nation’s economic woes. The optimism is palpable.
But… I just don’t get it. How? How is he going to do it?
I thought maybe it was just me, but I have noticed increasingly that critics of Mr Obama comment on the vague nature of his economic policies. One described it as ‘vacuous’. And where is the newness? Government spending is hardly a new policy. It has been tried over and over again. How many befuddled commentators have remarked that you cannot ‘buy prosperity’ or ‘spend your way out of recession’. And yet, somehow, legions of devoted, intensely emotional followers, whose faith borders it seems to me at times on the religious, are convinced that salvation is nigh. The Messiah is here…
Yes, but… what is he going to do? Over and over again, History seems to show us that government spending is wasteful, inefficient, and riddled with porkbarrel politics ( “jobs for the boys “). And that tax dollars often compete (unfairly) against bona fide private enterprise companies, either driving them out of business, or preventing a private enterpise (that could have dealt with the need) from getting off the ground in the first place…
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…
I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…. And an enormous debt to boot! “
(Philip Morgenthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939)
I often wonder is it just me? I, a simple pawn of the Great Ones, an unmentionable peon, a wart on an ant’s but, how could I possibly have any insight into great and historic events? What the hell do I know? And I do so try to be one of the unthinking masses. Blend in. Grateful for whatever handouts I might receive from Hillary and Barry…
I was -and am- therefore moved to emotion, as I read yesterday’s paper. Syndicated columnist Mona Charen writes under the heading of “Obama’s trillion-dollar plan for spending is a scary one “.
The good lady refers to the splendid visage of the “Anointed One “, emblazoned on coffee mugs, key chains, and even light up necklaces.
She then goes on to say:
“There’s always a degree of giddiness on the part of those who supported the president-elect, whoever he is, but today’s excitement borders on worship… “
Hey! I felt like shouting. That’s my line! I just hadn’t gotten around to putting it down in writing yet! And, yes, when is the Canonisation enquiry going to open? Oh, I’m sorry, Beatification comes first? Okay, when is it?
Too much hysteria already…
And further on in the article, I saw she had pinched more of my immortal, as yet unwritten lines.
Via the “conga line ” of bail out supplicants, and the “fast train to fiscal insolvency “, Mona steams along remorselessly to the “Stimulus ” bill.
“And if the Obama ‘stimulus’ bill passes, our federal deficit will top $1.7 trillion next year! As Hassert of the American Enterprise Institute has observed, “If government spending provided such a wonderful boost to the economy, we would be in Nirvana already “. Or, as a cartoonist rendered it, our economy is in a hole and the Obama solution is “shovel ready “.
The first rule of getting out of holes is to quit digging… “
I love you, Mona. And I forgive you for pinching my lines.
F.M.
(c)
CLICK HERE TO GO TO MORATORIUM PROTEST MAIN PAGE
Last edited by Francis Meyrick on September 2, 2010, 11:05 am
Would the real Franklin Delano Roosevelt please stand up?
January 20, 2009 in Uncategorized
Would the real Franklin Delano Roosevelt please stand up? (1)
January 19th, 2009
I decided today to start keeping a log on my attempts to get to know President Franklin Roosevelt.
The greatest president ever. A hero for millions. Invoked by Hillary Clinton. And Mr Barry.
I ask myself why I want to keep a log. I think I kind of know why. Secret Guilt. Because I don’t want to be prejudiced, but I’m really increasingly disliking the fellow. And his heirs apparent. It would be nice if somebody would help me discover something lovable about FDR.
Hell, even likable would do.
My dislike really got going in late 2001 or so, when I first read “The New Dealers’ War ” by Thomas Fleming. I had already some suspicions before that. However, that book annoyed me intensely. I guess my frustrated former pacifism was coming out. To phrase my thoughts diplomatically, I guess my considered, balanced, erudite opinion was something along the lines of:
“What… a devious, two faced, underhanded slime ball. What kind of a rat would go against the overwhelmingly majority of the American people (70 to 90%, depending on the various Gallup polls) and conspire, connive, lie, and manipulate to further his end, namely to propel America in to World War 2? By trickery and distortions? And why? To deflect attention from his ruinously failing New Deal policies? To further his own ego? Because he had a Messianic complex? Or just for the love of chicanery? To win, to be the best, to tower above all around him? “
I calmed down a bit, and it seemed I should read some more. Maybe Fleming was just a snake potion huckster trying to sell his miserable flea bitten book. I should read the ‘other side’. I should explore further. So I read other books. However, “FDR’s Folly ” by Jim Powell, and “New Deal or Raw Deal ” by Burton Folsom intervened, and embittered me further.
(I have reviews on these books on www.Amazon.com)
I was more and more convinced FDR was the worst president ever in the history of the United States.
But wait, maybe I was being deceived. You can’t trust everything you read. Explore further, a voice said to me.
So, again on www.Amazon.com, I posted a reading request in the forum of “Great Depression “. I asked the question:
“What would be a balanced bibliography on FDR…….? ”
On FDR, I’ve recently read “New Deal or Raw Deal “, “FDR’s Folly “, “The New Dealers’ War “, and “Day of Deceit “. So far, I’m most unimpressed with the gentleman, but I’m willing to research further. What am I missing? To balance out my reading, what pro-FDR books should I read? I’m thinking of writing a novel as a sequence to my “Jeremy’s war ” which would feature the FDR era. Trying to get a balanced picture.
Francis
I received a kind reply from “Chimonsho “. Maybe he felt sorry for me. His post said:
Many recent books on FDR & the New Deal are the tail end of Bush-era reaction. They add some provocative insights but are usually considered rather ideological. For more objective views, the following have their own biases but are classics acknowledged by professional historians & educated public.
GENERAL
—JM Burns, Roosevelt (2 vols)–very impressive but written before many key sources were open
—Conrad Black, Franklin Delano Roosevelt–enormous; has more detail than any 1-vol work. By a conservative who nevertheless has a balanced view of FDR
SPECIALIZED
—R Sherwood, Roosevelt & Hopkins–unsurpassed for its inside view. Re Hopkins, imagine if Karl Rove had been a social worker, & had a conscience
—E Larrabee, Commander In Chief–eloquent study of FDR at war, with good chapters on military leaders. Esp good on Marshall
—E Cray, General of the Army–best biog of George Marshall & a good lens for seeing FDR. “One of his finest & most consequential choices. ” [Larrabee]
SPIRIT OF THE AGE
—S Terkel, Hard Times—memorable oral history of Great Depression
—R McElvaine, The Great Depression–well-respected scholarly survey of GD
I was quite taken with that. Some guidance! Goodie. Now I could go forth a little less blinkered.
I wasn’t sure what “the tail end of bush-era reaction ” meant. But as I was obviously supposed to know, I didn’t want to admit my pathetic ignorance, so I didn’t ask.
A quick perusal of other people’s reviews on Chimonsho’s choices, seems to show these books are either pro FDR, or more neutral. That sounds like what I need to go and read. Hell, I might even be able to like the dude a bit. Millions of other people do. Some positively revere him. The Irish-American Catholics of his time hung his picture beside the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Heck, maybe they still do.
Yes, I should at least be able to like him a bit. Surely. My Irish mother, God rest the poor woman’s soul, would finally be proud of me.
To be sure.
Well, here’s hoping…
F.M.
(c)
Last edited by Francis Meyrick on January 22, 2009, 4:32 am
Book Review: “FDR’s Folly “
January 11, 2009 in Uncategorized
“FDR’s Folly ” by Jim Powell
ISBN 0-7615-0165-7
January 10, 2009
(Note: I own and have READ all of this book) (…)
Short review:
A heavy read for us simple bears, written by an accomplished academic. It’s bursting full of information, and very thought provoking. I like the lay out of the contents, where each of the 19 chapters asks a question, so you know what you are getting into. A must read for anybody willing to seriously set aside prejudices, and look at the underlying facts of FDR’s often bizarre and haphazard “experimenting ” with the US economy. I urgently need to go read an admiring book (any suggestions?) written by somebody who thinks FDR was a great president, because the more I read about him, I increasingly get the impression he was somewhat of an “economically uninformed klutz ” and basically just a shrewd and manipulative bluffer. Who,behind the rhetoric and the “fireside chats ” didn’t give a hoot about anybody except (votes for) himself. Who only got saved by the “crisis ” (he provoked?)of Pearl Harbor and WW2. And whose policies and shadow haunt us to this day.
(Sorry, apologies to FDR lovers; I have looked at the dissenters’ comments, who absolutely hated this book, and I AM shopping around for some PRO-FDR books. Let’s check out the opposition’s story…) (Bernanke’s essays?)
Long review:
I put the book down a few times, and read other stuff. I went back to it again, and eventually finished it. That tells you either that I’m a dimwit who struggles with words with more than two syllables, or that it’s just highly concentrated, heavy-heavy-heavy, with constant new names, dates and places, and lots of leafing back and forwards to follow the plot. Well worth it though. Some quotes for you, to get a taste of the goodies:
(page 57) “A major effect of deposit insurance was to transfer the cost of bank failures from depositors to taxpayers. The full consequences of federal deposit insurance didn’t become apparent until the 1980’s, when bailing out savings and loan associations cost $519 billion. “
(Page 71) “FDR imagined he could fix the world gold price from his bedroom “
(page 75) “From the very beginning of his administration, FDR attacked investors and employers “. This theme shows up clearly throughout the whole book.
(page 75) “The business community… was pitifully inept when FDR launched his moral crusade against free markets. ” FDR certainly interfered with the free markets, but he did so haphazardly, and seemingly on an ad-hoc,improvised, “Hey! Let’s try THIS idea ” experimental basis. The man, if nothing else, was remarkably high handed and conceited, it seems to me.
(page 77) “Like FDR, Mussolini believed that individualism was old fashioned, an obstacle to progress. “
(page 79) “Confiscation of wealth may satisfy the vengeful in us. It may sooth a retaliatory spirit. But it is the path of national suicide…. There must always be the reward motive. “
(page 82) “…FDR delivered a speech that again demonized investors and employers. He employed one attack after another… “
(page 86) “…in a November 1941 Fortune poll, 93 per cent of employers said they expected their property rights to be undermined and also anticipated the possibility of dictatorship “. One wonders how much FDR maybe admired Stalin and Mussolini?
(page 87) “FDR tax adviser Randolph E.Paul had acknowledged much worse, that FDR’s tax policies “intensified the depression they were working to correct “. Shades of… January 2009?
(page 93) “Invariably, politics influenced the way PWA money was spent. “
(page 185) “Experience everywhere indicates that politicians will hardly be able to keep their hands off such easy money “.
There truly is a staggering amount of information in this book. The pace is relentless. What amazes me is that so much of the content is -intensely- relevant to the big debate going on right now, January 2009, in the incoming Obama administration. Some of his devotees come out with policy statements, and express “Big Government ” “Federal ” attitudes, that have an eerie similarity to some of the content of this book. If you read this book, I think you might end up agreeing to some degree with me:
1) that the debate issues raised in “FDR’s Folly ” are as topical today as ever. Supremely relevant.
2) Too many politicians, who delight in the sound of their own voices on national television, never read History or Economics, and never seem to learn from past US policy mistakes.
3) It’s serious; are we once again going to see a US President and his “experts ” prolong this depression by trying the same past failed remedies?
4) And this is just my impression: Isn’t it amazing how FDR had all sorts of people cheering wildly for him, when in fact there is so much evidence in this book and others that he basically shafted them? That’s a neat trick: get people to vote for you, and love you, whilst you cynically screw them over royally. Just one of many examples in this book: so much money went to the richest states, because they were seen by FDR as ‘swing votes’. The poorer states, which were already loyal to him, got a fraction of the funds. Seeing as we are dealing here with empirical evidence, (cold facts) I don’t see how FDR lovers can explain that one away, but I’m willing to listen, ya hear?
5) FDR had complete contempt for the black race. That comes out with his treatment of the black tenant farmers, and above all his refusal to back an anti-lynching law. That amazes me. That alone paints a somber picture of the man who many revere as one of the greatest US presidents. Where was his “compassion ” there? It seems FDR’s colleagues were trying to prod him into action. From what I can see, he just thought it was funny. Hard to avoid the conclusion that deserving black people were treated with a cynical disregard. Simply… horrible.
Good book. I shall be using it a lot as reference material. Now to look at what the “other side ” says about it all.
Enjoy!
F.M.
(c)
Last edited by Francis Meyrick on October 5, 2009, 1:51 pm