Talk:New Deal

a small request

Going through this article, there seem to be a lot of acronyms that are never spelled out. If anyone knows what they mean, would you mind clarifying this? CWA= Civil Works administration FHA= Federal housing administration WPA= Works Progress Administration USHA= U.S. Housing Authority CCC= Civilian Conservation Corps FERA= Federal emergency relief act AAA= Agricultural Adjustment Act TVA= Tennessee Valley Authority HOLC= Home Owners' Refinancing Act NRA= National recovery Administration PWA= Public Works Administration Stormn89 Sir Shrubberry Dec. 27 05

---

Off topic from this but Rich and poor does not seem to be right please help im not sure

Hanging sentence driving me crazy

I cannot imagine the intended meaning of this line: "In practice the day of the bank run was virtually ended by the FDIC."

• That is bothering me too. Watersoftheoasis 02:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I replaced it with "The establishment of the FDIC virtually ended the era of "runs" on banks." Does that make sense to you?--orlady 03:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Communism

Ok why is a reference to communism in this article. It just seems like a typical biased section. I just dont see the need for it.

Recent changes, future changes

This article is good, but some improvements are necessary. I already reorganized and reworked the section on the first hundred days, making it more clear why it is a self-standing section. Also, there is a "historical assessment" of the second term, but not the first; I hope to get around to writing one for the first term. Also, perhaps even more important than the historical assessment is the contemporary response, particular the response of his contemporary political opponents think, which is missing. JBurnham 04:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

wow, this article is a beast! god, i miss 172. Bonus Onus 04:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Biased article (to put it mildly)

This article is grossly biased and in many parts simply counter-factual.

The whole section of "The New Deal and economic relief" is pure fantasy. The article runs:

"It was not until the U.S. entered World War II, however, did Roosevelt try Keynes' idea on a scale necessary to pull the nation out of the Great Depression; Roosevelt, of course, had little choice now. Even granted the special circumstances of war mobilization, it seemed to work exactly as Keynes predicted, winning over even many Republicans. When the Great Depression was brought to an end by the Second World War, business had been reinforced by government expenditures"

Indeed! Aggragate consumer demand stalled, monitary expansion galore, ten-fold increase in saving, taxes held in check -- No doubt about it -- it's the fabled Keynes formula! In reverse perhaps (as Keynes wanted fiscal expension, no saving, more aggragate consumer demand, higher taxes) but nonetheless!

Apart from that (and the incoherent structure of the whole article, which looks like a jumbled up coalition of inserts) the summary:

"Although the New Deal did not end the depression, all in all it helped to prevent the economy from decaying further by increasing the regulatory functions of the federal government in ways that helped stabilize previous trouble areas of the economy"

Is opinion, not facts. Even if one agrees (and most sensible ones don't) that regulatory action did play a part in "preventing" further decay, it's a very dubious contention in view of the feeble nature of regulartions at this point. (Ori)

A Counter Argument (not very long; i'm kind of busy right now)

The key thing achieved by the New Deal, what it gave to the American people, and later the world (despite a policy of isolationism, America was still integral in the world's economies) is confidence.

Confidence was what caused the Depression in the first place; the fatal weaknesses in America's economic system (a vast gulf between grossly inflated share prices and faling business performance) were seen by key economists who pulled their money out of Wall Street, triggering a domino effect. The "Booming" 20's were booming because people had the confidence to go out and spend money, even when they didn't always have the money to do so, because they were certain of more money coming in. The Wall Street Crash destroyed all that confidence. Roosevelt's action with the banks, the fireside chats, the alphabet agencies, they all gave the American people confidence. When WW2 started, the great recovery was coming along. The New Deal gave the American economy a boost; this declined when Congress began blocking the President's every move, but there is a reason for some President's initials being immortalised (FDR), and others not (who ever heard of JEH? howabout J.Edgar Hoover?)

Serious NPOV problems!

Several sections of this article, especially the one on Legacies of the New Deal, are clearly biased in favor of the New Deal and presenting opinion as fact. In addition we're treated to such stuff as "Thus, perhaps the strongest legacy of the New Deal, in other words, was to make the federal government a protector of interest groups and a supervisor of competition among them. As a result of the New Deal, U.S. political and economic life became much more competitive than before..." which doesn't really make sense. --Bkalafut 06:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opposition to the New Deal

I notice the opposotion to the new deal is basically absent throughout the article in general. This article should, at least, note the large group of Democrats, led by 12 strong anti-New Deal advocates, who greatly opposed it during Roosevelt's second and third term. Another thing that the article may want to mention is Roosevelt's attempt to unseat these anti-New Deal Democrats in the 1938 and 1940 election - in which Roosevelt failed miserably. I, myself, am so bias against the New Deal that I do not trust myself to write such an addition. YourNickname 16:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is Critics of the New Deal.--Fangz 17:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

earlier in the article it acknowledges that unemployment and poverty prevailed throughout the new deal, but later is hystericaly claiming that it was beneficial. despite added government controls that prolonged the depression, it claims that it was still a good idea in a very opinionated and subjective way. i would refer readers to Ayn Rand's non fiction work "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal" for further analysis of how detrimental the new deal was to the economic U.S.

NPOV Issues

I haven't read past the introduction, but it is clearly in violation of an reasonable understnding of what NPOV means:

"Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" is widely regarded as being a socialism-oriented set of policies that is responsible for the economic difficulties the United States faces today. In addition to transforming the government into a octopus-like entity, affecting every aspect of American economic life, Roosevelt initiated programs that punish the wealthy and successful for being wealthy and successful, make people prone to relying on the government for their every need, and tend to stagnate potential economic growth."

Kind of crys out for a little editing, huh?

The recent edits were simple vandalism that should have been removed on sight. Thanks for pointing them out. 172 | Talk 00:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Geez, after 70 years one would think some balance would be tolerable. nobs 01:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This article largely follows the standard account offered in U.S. history departments in universities. It is not largely based on the older dominant accounts of liberal admirers of the New Deal such as Schlesinger. It builds on some of the more critical works that followed Hofstadter. It probably fits even most closely into the work of political scientists like Skocpol, who have taken an institutional turn, thereby skirting the debate in economics between Keynesians and monetarists. So, this article has not been, and does not have to be, a battle ground between today's liberals who seek to affirm the legacies of the New Deal and libertarians. 172 | Talk 01:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

FDIC vs SEC

Author of this article doesn't know the difference between the FDIC & the SEC, or converserly the difference between the stock market & the banking industry. It's all money & rich folks I guess, so lets not let facts get in the way of progress. nobs 01:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I would've recognized that error if I had more closely proofread this article in the past couple of months. I went ahead and corrected that problem. 172 | Talk 01:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Smoot-Hawley

Well, somewhere in the New Deal should be included the widespread view held by modern scholarship that the Smoot-Hawley Trade Protection act, and others like it around the world, is what led to a world-wide collapse of international trade and thus a worldwide depression. The Depression did not "begin" on Black Tuesday; the seeds and root of it were sown much deeper, and the Stock Market Crash was simply a reflection of economic trends of the times. Hence today, policy makers will justify eliminating trade barriers at all costs—even if it means allowing cheaper foreign labor to manufacture goods that has a short term effect of creating unemployment in the domestic market. The path of protectionism has been tried, and everyone knows its disasterous result.

The other aspect that could be expanded in this article is, to paraphrase Milton Friedman, the Federal Reserve Board failed to perform precisely the function it was created to perform, at precisely the moment it needed to perform that function, i.e. pump up the money supply, or act as lender of last resort when the run on the banks ensued. nobs 02:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The place to include information on the literature on Smoot-Hawley by the monetarists and the Austrian economists (who are not the only recent perspectives on the subject) is the Smoot-Hawley article. This is a wiki, meaning that it readers of this article are interested in further details on the causes of the Great Depression, they can click on the depression-related links here and find the information in other articles. 172 | Talk 02:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, specifically what I am refering to are phrases like "crisis in capitialism" in this article. Then we can demonstrate that New Deal "reforms" like AAA set asides were dictated by the (capitalistic) axiom of supply and demand, i.e. reduce areable farm land to reduce farm output, to increase demand for farm goods to increase farm income, etc. There are many such examples. nobs 02:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

First, I saw that you removed the phrase "crisis in capitalism" where it appeared in the article. I did not object, and it's gone. So that's not an issue now. Second, the article makes it clear that the AAA was a price-fixing scheme that sought to increase farm incomes; and that is not a contested statement at all. It is important, however, to point out where it failed to increase farm incomes. On that note, I was the one who wrote the content on the plight of black tenant farmers in the South who were pushed off their land because of the AAA. 172 | Talk 03:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This has been a interesting exchange, I'm a bit short of time right now and would like to proof read the rest later. One thing I've noticed regarding many historical accounts of the New Deal: the New Deal, just like many other such programs (Great Society, Reaganomics, Contract With America, etc.) began with high hopes among its adherents. However, after a number of years, many people openly despised these government programs, and felt no shame in letting others know it. As time went on, the New Deal became less, and less popular. President Truman's "Fair Deal" was a virtual admission that the New Deal had not been fair, as was openly spoken at that time. Time and again, this lack of fair criticism is absent from historic accounts of the New Deal (but certainly is apparent in Great Society, Reaganomics, Contract With America, accounts). nobs 03:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

There has been attention paid to some of your observations on the declining popularity of the New Deal in university U.S. history departments. The work of economists criticizing the New Deal is better known, however, because their work has more readily apparent implications for economic policy today than the work of historians. 172 | Talk 03:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

POV and inaccuracies

I corrected inaccurate statements about Britain and added more detail about the economy. The way to handle POV issues is to make clear who argued what, especially liberals and conservatives. The ency is not an supposed to take sides, but is supposed to give readers solid arguments on all sides, clearly identifying the issues. I also added bibliography and online sources. RJensen Rjensen 22:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

How about a criticism section?

This article seems a little biased in favor of socialism. The article could use a Criticism section. RJII 01:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Goals

Although I have not read the entire page, I was not quite able to find the goals of the New Deal. Perhaps I am missing the obvious, but if the artical could be rewritten as to state the goals early on, it would reduce confusion. --Akako|☎ 21:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is consistent with the presenation in other references and survey texts on U.S. history. The reason you cannot find a clear statement of the goals of the New Deal in the article is that there were no such goals. The New Deal was not a bill or piece of legislation but a slogan used by FDR and his associates to refer to the administration's evolving, often-contradictory policy agenda for around a decade. 172 07:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.--Akako|☎ 17:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Getting Serious about the New Deal

We have to treat this as an encyclopedia not a polemical debate forum. I added a full scholarly bibliography that will be of use to readers and which covers most all the alternative POV interpretations of the New Deal. (I dropped Hayek because his book does not deal directly with the New Deal.) I added an introduction that included the standard textbook model of the 3-R's (relief, recovery and reform). #172 deleted it because they think it's POV. Nonsense. If 172 thinks so he should debate it right here before damaging other people's work. (And yes I am a professional historian who has published extensively on the 1930s.) 3-R is the framework used by many history (including supporters and opponents, on left and right) to classify the many complicated programs. POV means taking sides and this model does not do that. It helps to sort the MANY alphabetical agencies that otherwise overwhelm the student.

The previous versions were badly flawed and full of misinformation. For example the old first sentence says the ND is Roosevelt's legislative agenda. That's false--historians all concentrate on the agencies (and say very little about Congress, which was mostly a rubber stamp. The first banking bill was passed by the House as a rolled up newspaper because they did not have a copy! There's a lot of gross error in the early version--for example it says `At the time, some of the New Deal policies were recognised by supporters as being at least somewhat unconstitutional...` --which is false-- and supports this falsehood by a speech made in 1931, 2 years before FDR took office. Likewise the earlier version is full of polemnical POV such as "dismal record in aiding marginal farmers and African Americans, among others—contrasted with its often frequent generosity toward certain business interests" -- that's pretty controversial stuff! The article never mentions the HUGE effort made by RA and FSA to help marginal farmers. It keeps secret who the "certain business interests" were. That's polemics that is unsuited to an encyclopedia. If there is a debate, just tell the reader there are 3 different evaluations: A, B and C.

How this for another howler: " Except in the field of labor relations, corporate power remained nearly as free from government regulation or control in 1945 as it had been in 1933. " The author never heard of wage and price control, the OPA, the military priority system, the special war taxes and and all the wartime controls over business? That howler suggests we need much more careful editing here. Rjensen 10:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work-- I just read through all of your changes. I am very sorry about my revert earlier. I think I was confusing you with another editor with a different set of changes in mind at the time. I do need to be more careful... At any rate, working on Wikipedia for more than three years has left me very burnt out. Too often Wikipedia's economic history articles turn into online discussion board quarrels between users posting Randroid tracts on the one hand and users posting Marxist agitprop on the other. I hope you get a chance to rewrite many more articles and start to turn Wikipedia into a serious resource on economic history. 172 07:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, now I really feel like schmuck! I know who you are. Just now I finally made the connection to the user account name. What an honor it is to have you contributing here! Still apologizing profusely, 172 08:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is dreadful POV

This article needs to give fair hearing to monetarist objections to the new deal at the time, and later negative review with hindsight. The opposition to the new deal is not a minor opinion that can be noted - is in entirely mainstream and has been since the 30's.

This is really really bad. I am inclined to put a NPOV tag on this article until some change is made. I do not have the energy for the fight, but if someone else agrees I will support them vigorously.

jucifer 17:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• The Critics of the New Deal is totally inadequate for so many reasons. It is merely a list of the critics, with no proper explanation of their views. At the absolute minimum there must be a first-order section on "Criticism" in this article (with a link under the header to {Main Article: Critics of the New Deal}, which needs expanding) detailing the primary complaints of the critics. The most controversial economic issue in the history of the US needs to have both sides aired.

jucifer 17:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Monetarist objections to the New Deal deserves its own article. Likewise an article on the money supply at the time, or tax policies. This is an argument among economic historians. I have tried to include discussion of some of these points where they belong (eg Lewis Douglas). But the main goal of the encyclopedia article on the New Deal is to tell what happened, not what did not happen. For example to list and briefly explain all the farm programs is itself a major chore and it has just begun. Likewise relief program. Likewise fiscal and monetary policies. Now I do agree the Critics of New Deal entry needs fleshing out. That is difficult work: you really have to be an expert to untangle the many, many arguments that were used at the time -- it's a job Joseph Dorfman did brilliantly in his 5 volume history of economic ideas, but it stops in 1933 and no one has done the leg work. Rjensen 19:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

he opposed socialism?

" Roosevelt strongly opposed socialism" <- what's the source for this? Ostensibly he strongly favored socialism. RJII 04:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh no. There was a Socialist party in those days (headed by Eugene Debs to 1920s then Norman Thomas) and FDR fought it all his life, and they fought him bitterly. When the opportunity came for a socialist breakthrough their biggest obstacle, by far, was FDR himself. , Thus there were serious proposals in 1930s to nationalize the banks, the electric power grid, medicine and the railroads and he insisted: Never! There were some socialist elements to the TVA, true, but not in the other major programs. FDR wanted a very strong business-based economy. He also wanted to empower workers and farmers in terms of politics. But he never endorsed plans to give workers seats on the board of corporations (and that never happened.) FDR rejected the idea that the government should control the means of production, the #1 plank of socialism. As for planning, he did appoint some committees but he never took up their recommendations. In 1920 as VP candidate FDR opposed the proposal to nationalize the railroads. He never took over any business whatever (apart that is from the TVA issue). You can see it in small things: for example the WPA was normally not allowed to own the trucks or bulldozers it used (they were rented or donated by city government). The WPA had a sewing project but they were not allowed to sell any products; instead the sewn items were donated to hospitals and orphanages. Rjensen 04:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Are political appointments part of New Deal?

Gazpachio says 'African Americans - political appointments cannot in any sense be considered a component of the new deal'. That's an odd perspective. Every book on the New Deal includes them....what's the problem? Rjensen 11:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"Other Initiatives" Section NPOV

The paragraph beginning "On November 16, 1933, when the Roosevelt administration recognized the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics..." seems to be totally out of place in this article. Most of the groups listed had nothing to do with the New Deal, and seem to have been included merely because of chronological proximity to the rest of these events... I'm not even sure that the offical relationship between the USA and USSR is pertinent.--Genobeeno 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

good point--I revised to emphasize internal politics Rjensen 01:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

source for not a copy of mussolini

The text says "Despite the superficial resemblances, historians have concluded that the New Deal did not explicitly copy anything from Italy or Germany. [Garraty 1973; Kennedy 1999]" Can I get a quote from those sources that says that? I don't see that in there. RJII 03:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

read Garraty and Kennedy esp Garraty shows the parallels and no copying. I gave detailed quotes from FDR based on kennedy. Are you suggesting that program XYZ was somehow borrowed from Italy or Germany?? Which XYZ???? I do not believe any scholars would agree. (Add Diggins on Italy). Rjensen 04:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You didn't give any quote claiming that nothing was copied from Italy's or Germany's systems. I don't see that claim being made in the papers. RJII 04:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You want 25 words but you have to make do with 25 pages. Why do you say it's "dubious"???? Rjensen 04:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Because that claim is not made in the sources, but those sources are given to back up the claim that "Despite the superficial resemblances, historians have concluded that the New Deal did not explicitly copy anything from Italy or Germany." RJII 04:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok here's 25 words from Payne, History of Fascism (1995) p 230: "What Fascist corporatism and the New Deal had in common was a certain amount of state intervention in the economy. Beyond that, the only figure who seemed to look on Fascist corporatism as a kind of model was Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration. F. Perkins, The Roosevelt I Knew (New York, 1946), 206." Rjensen 04:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so that source contradicts the claim in the article. Hugh Johnson looked on the Italian system as a model. RJII 04:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And, the sources given for the claim do not reflect the claim. The claim needs to be removed. RJII 04:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

NO Hugh Johnson himself strongly denied any connection. "This [NRA] is being organized almost as you would organize a business.

I want to avoid any Mussolini appearance -- the President calls this Act industrial self-government. " Blue Eagle, from Egg to Earth. Contributors: Hugh S. Johnson p 223. So the point stands: no programs were copied from or modelled after Italy or Germany. (Johnson of course did not write the NRA laws. he was hired after Congress passed the legislation. We can of course drop the whole section which suggests that ND was copying fascist Europe. Rjensen 04:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not true that Johnson didn't help write the NRA policies. He was part of the Brain Trust that drafted them. And, just because he says "I want to avoid any Mussolini appearance" doesn't mean he wasn't modeling policy on Italy. RJII 04:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's original research to claim that he is denying a connection by that quote. RJII 05:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"The National Industrial Recovery Act as originally drafted contained at least the form of much that Tugwell had promoted. The bill was a compromise. As usual Roosevelt set several groups to work on it. Tugwell, with Jerome Frank and John Dickinson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, were drafting one version. Hugh Johnson, Bernard Baruch's supporter who had been added to the Brains Trust during the campaign, did another. Tugwell initiated meetings between the two and they reached general agreement." Implications of an Historical Debate for a Renewal of National Planning Institutions: Roosevelt and Tugwell in the New Deal by George Hemmens. RJII 05:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"At the first meeting of the cabinet after the President took office in 1933, the financier and advisor to Roosevelt, Bernard Baruch, and Baruch's friend, General Hugh Johnson, who was to become the head of the National Recovery Administration, came in with a copy of a book by [Gio-vanni] Gentile, the Italian Fascist theoretician [Mussolini's Education Minister], for each member of the Cabinet, and we all read it with care." -Frances Perkins, quoted in Radwick, George Working Class Self-Activity, Radical Review (1969) RJII 05:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Roosevelt and his “Brain Trust,” the architects of the New Deal, were fascinated by Italy’s fascism — a term which was not perjorative at the time. In America, it was seen as a form of economic nationalism built around consensus planning by the established elites in government, business, and labor." Trifkovic, Srdja FDR and Mussolini, Chronicals August 2000. RJII 05:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933. Roosevelt's National Recovery Act (NRA) attempted to cartelize the American economy just as Mussolini had cartelized Italy's. Under the NRA Roosevelt established industry-wide boards with the power to set and enforce prices, wages, and other terms of employment, production, and distribution for all companies in an industry. Through the Agricultural Adjustment Act the government exercised similar control over farmers. Interestingly, Mussolini viewed Roosevelt's New Deal as "boldly... interventionist in the field of economics." Fascism, by Sheldon Richman. RJII 05:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes everyone heard of Italy but not one program was copied from Italy. We do have detailed histories on this point. Hawley (1966) explains the origins of NRA in great detail as 100% American, as does Gordon (1994). Johnson's main contribution was to use the ww1 model of the War Industries Board (which predated fascism). Rjensen 05:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's see quotes from Hawley and Gordon that claim nothing was modeled on Mussolini's system. RJII 05:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I removed the stroy about Perkins. First it is hearsay--a grad student (Rawick) heard Perkins, then in her 80s, tell a story in the department lounge. They story says that Hugh Johnson went to an early cabinet meeting and gave everyone a copy of a book by Gentile--a leading Italian fascist; Perkins says all the cabinet members read the book. The story is 3rd hand hearsay-- and there was no such book. In 1933-34, all of Gentile's many books were in Italian, according to major US libraries (Library of Congress, Yale etc). So we have hearsay to the effect that every cabinet member read a book in Italian!! and the inference is that this book influenced New Deal policies. I dubmit that does not meet encyclopedia standards for an established fact. Rjensen 21:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

References

Shouldn't the Primary references come before the secondary references? User:David Souther

Table

How about adding the table the increasing marginal tax rate on the highest income tax bracket? And then, under that show the decreasing tax revenues to the State as the rate increased? RJII 03:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

sounds like material to push some political POV or another

Whether it pushes a POV or not doesn't really matter. All that matters is that it's true. Let the POV fall where it may. RJII 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like factual information that should be reported...why are certain people so afraid of information being presented? (Gibby 22:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

Why are certain years being excluded from the chart? There is not a space problem. Let's put all the years there. RJII 19:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Put all years in, especially considering how 1935 has been left out. (Gibby 22:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

people who want all the years can interpolate it easy enough. The more columns the harder it is to read. Rjensen 22:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I guess I'll have to put them in then. RJII 23:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

1938 GNP was wrong. RJII 06:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Nortz v. United States

Bad interpretation of Nortz v. U.S. in the article. The article tries to claim that the case is indicating that the Gold Confiscation was not a seizure of wealth. The ruling does not say that. The case is about a guy trying to cash in his bonds for a higher dollar amount because the price of gold was raised. He wanted a higher price than was denominated on the bonds. If he were to recieve gold, as promised on the bonds, he would have received more wealth. Of course he lost wealth by the government refusing to pay the gold that was promised; the government broke its contract and deprived him of the wealth that was promised him. The Court did not rule that the government did not confiscate is wealth, but that he had no legal right to recieve more than 22.67 for each bond, since that was the denomination of the bond. RJII 06:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• • gold was currency with a face value. a gold coin said $20 and would buy 100 gallons of gasoline. The owner went to a bank and got a paper bill marked $20 that ALSO bought 100 gallons of gasoline. So how how much did the guy lose? not a penny!! Rjensen 23:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If a dollar is devalued it means is worth less in regard to what it can buy than before. He couldn't buy the same amount of gasoline if the $20 were devalued. The $20 buys less gas after the devaluation --just like the $20 buys less gold after the valuation. RJII 00:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII is talking about inflation. If the price of gas goes up to 50 cents a gallon, then the $20 coin will buy only 40 gallons, and the $20 bill will buy 40 gallons. exactly the same! as the table shows there was not much inflation in fact. Rjensen 00:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about gas, when we should be talking about gold. The fact is the dollar was devalued against gold. The same dollar could not purchase the same amount of gold. The gold was stolen by the government and fiat paper was given in return. This was privately owned gold. This made the government wealthier, because it no longer had to pay people gold for their paper --by decree, it changed a liability to an asset. What the people used to have a claim on, they no longer had a claim on. RJII 00:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's true that gold became more expensive. That meant some jewelry cost more, as did some tooth repairs. Gold rimmed eyeglasses cost a bit more. That's about it-- very little impact on real people. Who was hurt? nobody in the US (but speculators in Europe who bought up dollars hoping to get gold did lose money--it's tough being a currency speculator then and now.). Rjensen 02:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean nobody in the US was hurt? The paper money was devalued. Don't you understand? Look at the CPI from 1933 to 1947. That's inflation. In other words, the purchasing power of money was worth less and less. If you sat there holding your money during that time, value was stolen from you. Roosevelt confiscating the gold and gave fiat paper money in return. More paper money was printed that not backed by any kind of wealth and used to pay for the New Deal (as well as by exhorbitant taxes on the investor class). Over the course of the next decade and a half that money inflation was manifested in price inflation. SOMEBODY had to pay for all the spending FDR did. Who paid? The people --by value being taken from their money. If the dollar was devalued 40% against gold, then naturally, those whose gold was seized lost 40% of their wealth. RJII 04:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

INFLATION DID NOT HAPPEN: there was very little inflation during the New Deal years. the consumer price index was 13.2 in Nov 1932 when FDR was elected, and 14.0 in Nov 1940 when he was elected to third term. that is .1 per year. See official data at [1]. Rjensen 11:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a 6% decease in the value of money from 1932-1940. And the CPI in your table was up to 24 by 1948 --that's around an 80% decrease in the value of money from from when Roosevelt confiscated the gold and started devaluing the paper money.When you print a bunch of fiat money the price inflation is not immediate. The government spends the worthless money, then when it's in the hands of the people it's gradually realized that there is too much paper money and not a corresponding increased in wealth. Wealth has been taken from the people without ever having to actually tax them. And, as I said, Roosevelt devalued paper money 40% against gold. Therefore, those whose gold was seized lost 40% of their wealth --40% of their purchasing power. That's indisputable. RJII 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen deleting the fact that FDR campaigned on a classical liberal platform

Rjensen why are you deleting that FDR campaigned for small government, reduced spending, and sound currency? RJII 01:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I moved it a paragraph later to be in chronological order. I did delete POV commentary that was not appropriate. Rjensen 01:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, sorry. Also, i meant to leave this message on the FDR article --not this one. RJII 01:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why added template

I added Progressivism template because New Deal was progressive and part of that way of thinking also called American liberalism as opposed to classical liberalism. Why was it removed? What isn't progressive about the New Deal? --Northmeister 15:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• "The New Deal, drawing heavily on the experiences of its leaders, reflected the ideas, and was influenced by the programs, that FDR and most of his original associates had absorbed in their political youths early in the progressive era; had absorbed while serving in the Woodrow Wilson administration; and had absorbed holding other offices in the 1920s." From the article. --Northmeister 15:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen I'll leave it up to you to either restore the template or keep it removed for now; as I do not want a revert war over this, as 172 has jumped into this without knowing of our agreement to work together on this. --Northmeister 18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the Progressivism template is good. But, then so would be a Conservativism template. The New Deal had some very conservative elements --the partnership/collusion of state and business. FDR campaigned as a classical liberal, but, like you pointed out, the New Deal was anything but liberalism. RJII 20:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I am re-adding the progressivism template in light of the following material from William E. Leuchtenburg who wrote in his book "Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal":

• "Yet too much can be made of the 'ideological innocence' of the New Deal. By the time Roosevelt took office, he and his advisors had developed, or familiarized themselves with, a body of theory a good deal more coherent than is commonly suggested...From the Populists came suspicion of Wall Street...from the mobilization of World War I they derived instrumentalities for central direction of the economy; from urban social reformers [like] Jane Addams...arose a concern for the aged and indigent...Most influential were the theorists of the New Nationalism: Theodore Roosevelt....The free market of Adam Smith, the New Dealers argued, had vanished forever." (Leuchtenburg pg. 33-34 1963 Harper and Row ISBN: 0-06-133025-6)

--Northmeister 00:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Leuchtenberg carefully does not use the word progressive. As has been noted, 2/3 of the Progressives OPPOSED the New Deal--and the % went up as disillusioned ex-Progs like Al Smith turned against it.Rjensen 00:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your objections. But, can you deny the fact that the New Deal belongs to the list of 'progressive' elements and therefore fits in a similar vain as the "New Freedom" does, even though the "New Freedom" was opposed to the overal emphasis of both the New Deal and New Nationalism of Theodore Roosevelt regarding concentration and what to do about corporations? I will not add the template until we discuss this out, however in light of your objections. --Northmeister 00:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing needed?

I'm new here and not quite sure if I want to edit yet, so could someone else maybe list some problems with the ND? Bacongirl 17:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This article gets a lot of editing. My suggestion would be, if you are interested in the topic, to find an underdeveloped related article and expand it. Welcome to Wikipedia! JonHarder 19:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Do you know of any "underdeveloped related articles"? Bacongirl 16:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

One approach is to look at the what links here link associated with the article and find something that interests you. JonHarder 16:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

rjensen deleting sourced material

rjensen, how dare you delete a source from William P. Hoar by accusing him of not being a scholar. He's a prolific scholar. You may not like what he says to say, but he's a credible source by Wikipedia standard. RJII 04:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hoar is a leader of the John Birch society, and had no academic training in history. Birch society publishes all his stuff through "Western Islands Press" and "The new American" magazine. We need solid scholarly books and peer reviewed journal articles for credibility here. Rjensen 04:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL. No. You cannot make up your own standard for sourcing here on Wikipedia. RJII 04:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki says do not use offbeat sources, esp self-published, that have not been accepted by the community of scholars. Rjensen 05:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

So? It's not self-published. RJII 05:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

the name of the game in Wiki editing is evaluation of the quality and POV of an article.

You really have to a keep an eye on this rjensen, she's almost as bad as Mycroft.Holmes in terms of the just deleting stuff for giggles and personal reasons. Not a subjective contributor at all.

William P. Hoar, historian?

I'm not an expert in this area or a historian, but some searching shows that Hoar is closely associated with both the John Birch Society and "the New American" which does not give me confidence for using his material a quality source on New Deal history. His writing often refers to conspiracies. I would characterize his writing as partisan (see WP:RS) or more charitably opinion (again WP:RS). I would prefer to better sources than Hoar. JonHarder 13:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with Rjensen and yourself above. The John Birth Society, represents a fringe group, that although has every right to be represented if the material is accurate, should in light of their fringe nature and partisan writing, be backed up with scholarly and accepted text on the New Deal to be rationally included. --Northmeister 00:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

How about a Criticism section?

How about we add a Criticism section to help ensure NPOV. RJII 05:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It already has a long section on "Conflicting interpretation of the New Deal economic policies". If there is additiional serious criticism it should fit there. Rjensen 10:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My Advice let him alone to play with the article for a while, eventually he'll either get bored, banned, or admined.. this much trolling, RJ only has 3 possible futures, boredness, bannhood, or adminship.. that's it, so leave him alone to play here, not worthy nearly the effort--64.12.117.5 03:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Spare the personal attacks. I'm putting in sourced information from credible sources. I'm sorry that it tarnishes the Roosevelt myth, but this is Wikipedia and the truth can be told whether politically correct or not. RJII 03:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki rules say that offbeat theories by non-specialists should not wiggle their way in. One strongly suspects that RJii wants the attack on FDR included because he agrees with it--a forbidden POV on part of editors. Rjensen 00:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

True. And the best way to monitor this is to ensure that material from fringe or controversial sources are backed up with acceptable scholarly sources when challenged. Thus accuracy prevails. I agree no one should simply push POV, just display the facts of the situation and scholarly analysis of those facts from published sources and let the reader decide. I just added two fact checks because there is POV is calling the cause of the Depression to be Protectionism, that is simply not true for the United States, speculation on Wall Street and by the banks was the prime cause coupled with a general cycle of recession that occurs in capitalism. Hoover's failed response excacerbated the problem; the WPA of Roosevelt was actually on the right course (my opinion obviously) ie. hire the workers and pump the economy going into deficit and pay of the debt in prosperous times - meanwhile one can work on those internal improvements of rail-dams-ports-highways with all that manpower and release the worker when the business cycle turns bullish again (again my analysis of the lessons of FDR to modern man). --Northmeister 01:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I will stand beside you against political correctness or any other mode of censorship of accuracy. But, if you are to use sources - make sure they are accepted scholarly work or if from a fringe group, you should back them up with outside work that says the same thing. I think Rjensen's concerns above are over quality of material and a partisan group or and especially self-published sources are circumspect and need qualifiers to make them acceptable to the greater community as truth rather than biased spin. --Northmeister 00:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Although organization-wise, it would make sense to have a criticism section, a majority of the article discusses why the New Deal was bad and prolonged the Depression. At this point, most of the article is a criticism section. John 02:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop edit war

Look, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to help a reader to find more information. It is not a venue for two immature fools to pull out their keyboard dicks and slap them on the desk. You know who you are. Stop it. Zip up. Back off.--Cberlet 01:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As it stands now, it cannot be a sub-section of the economic policies, since fascism is a political ideology. It might have been a sub-section if the authors talked about Corporatism, but they don't. Intangible 01:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Fascist-styled economics is a form of Corporatism, but the mentioned authors have more to say than just that. Intangible 01:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Corporatism is one element of economic fascism. RJII 01:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Pet Theories and Real Fascism - Let's not demean history here

The whole theory that the New Deal was fascist is based on politically motivated charges from Hoover and others around him. There is no historic evidence that Fascism was accepted by Roosevelt. At the root of Fascism is a combination of State and Corporation and the subjection of the population to the state and the corporation - ie. Hitler's Nazis subordinated the German worker in the Fuhrer principle and Mussolini the originator of the Fascist philosophy created Corporations that combined private and state interests - and thus, together with dictatorship and control by a single strong man or party - such as Franco's Spain - and militarism (shown together in Spain under Franco, Italy under Mussolini, Argentina under Peron, and Germany under Hitler) we have real Fascism as it really manifested. What of America 1932-1941? America remained a Democratic-Republic, with free elections and maintained its liberties more so than today. Roosevelt did not subordinate the worker to the corporation; he extended greater benefits trying to codify the minimum wage and benefits within the context of fair competition through the NRA and later Fair Labor Standards acts. It is quite dishonest to accuse a democratic leader and democratic (small d) society with being Fascist without the true facts that made Fascism what it was in distinction from Communism, Socialism, and other ism's. For, example Stalin was by all accounts worse than Hitler (he killed 30 million of his own citizens and was also an anti-semite) but he was not Fascist, but Communist and more so of a brand named for him - Stalinism whose clear distinction with Fascism is not tyranny, but in the manner of state control over the economy. You must have all the ingredients of Fascism (Corporation/Military/State unity exercising decision making and control over the worker or citizens)-(Dictatorship by one man or committee of one party) to apply the term "Fascism" - which because of its demeaning and horrific nature as exercised by the Nazis in the Holocaust aught not to be used lightly. Thus, FDR was not a Fascist, society in the USA was NOT Fascist, and the term is being used to lightly by some in extreme portions of politics today which not only dishonors the millions who lost their life to real Fascism but the memory of our Grandfather's and Father's who supported, voted for, and were helped by the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt. --Northmeister 01:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole theory that the New Deal was fascist is based on politically motivated charges from Hoover and others around him. That might as well be, but that is not for wikipedia editors to ascertain. Let wikipedia readers decide for themselves who has the better arguments. My only reason to change to sub-section name was because fascism is more than just an economic system. Intangible 01:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a better sub-section title would be "Charges of fascism from the right" and should be under Criticism of the New Deal sub-section. What do you think? --Northmeister 01:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A sub-section thereunder would do, as long as it does not become a debate - rebuttal kind of section. What New Deal protagonists think should already be described before the criticism section. Then the critism section can just give arguments of those opposing the New Deal in some way or another. Intangible 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right, we should work in this direction...look to the edits I made before they were reverted by Cberlet earlier. See if such a revision would be suitable to you, also to you RJIII. I was trying to write what you said above into the article. I re-arrange text, and added some historic reference at the end - and only took out the see also which belongs at the end of the article if at all, since I feel it has a very faulty defintion of Fascism to the extreme which almost anything can be called fascism by its definition except anarchy. --Northmeister 03:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that FDR wanted a fascist-style economy for the U.S. --whether the resemblance to Mussolini's system was intentional or not. We would have one today if the Supreme Court didn't strike it down. See [2]. I think what's getting a rise out of people is the term "fascism" --today it's seen as a pejorative but back then it was a respectable alternative to a laissez-faire system before the term became associated with mass killings, etc. RJII 02:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are arguments on both sides. Please stop this waste of time and edit constructively.--Cberlet 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Same to you. Edit constructively and stop reverting. The section is obviously and explicitly about the relation to "fascism." So, it makes perfect sense that the title would reflect that. "Statism" just doesn't do it. RJII 02:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You (Cberlet) have interjected a see also in the improper place, please remove that to its proper place at the end of the article or else it will continue to be removed as it is linking to a POV article you have contributed much too..that is POV pushing...your definition of Fascism is highly circumspect and you should not place it in every article to make a point. You have also reverted more than thrice...violating 3RR please refrain from such edit-war tactics---I've had disputes with RJIII before, and have no intention of edit warring here with him - we have also worked things out and worked together - collaboration is a highlight of Wikipedia - this is legitimate discussion. --Northmeister 02:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(response to RJIII) That is simply not historically correct (FDR embraced fascism that is). America actually practiced non-laissez faire prior to the New Deal. Your statements about Roosevelt wanting Fascism are also not historically accurate and based on a faulty definition of fascism, which as indicated above; sees anything that a Fascist society practiced as "fascist" ie. economic policy. Fascism embraced a lot of things originally practiced by other nations or philosophyies but that does not make those things fascist - only the combination of certain elements makes fascism. On economic policy only difference between fascism and other interventionist policies was the combination of corporate interest, military interest, and state interest over the interest of the citizen as a whole - this manifested in Italy, then Germany, then Spain and Japan, and then Argentina. But, such would not make a society Fascist - but simply a Corporatist system - rather Fascism combines this Corporatism with Dictatorship and/or one party rule - but that would simply be traditional dictatorship using corporatism as an economic system without the last ingrediant...suppression of rights and liberties and strong advocacy against Democracy. Fascism is thrown around (including by some so-called academics) as if it is interchangable with statism or other forms of economic or political systems - but it is extremely inaccurate to call any system without the core elements of fascism as fascist in the literal sense - which is what Hoover and others did in opposing Roosevelt from the right - and from the left those who felt Roosevelt did not go far enough by embracing socialism or communism when he had the chance. --Northmeister 02:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(to RJII and Northmeister) It is not for wikipedia editors to ascertain this. Include the authors who criticize the New Deal in the criticism section, include the protaganists of the New Deal in the main section. That would help a lot. Intangible 03:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

True, there's no point in debating our own POV's. RJII 03:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. RJIII what do you think of the revision I made to the subsection on fascism before the revert? Can we go with that, or do you object on some points? --Northmeister 03:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I have any problem with it. RJII 03:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

<---------OK, mostly what I did was introduce new paragraph breaks and move paragraphs around. I also shortened the title, but feel free to restore if it makes you nuts (the table box was getting too wide). There was an intro phrase in one paragraph stating that commentators felt New Deal was fascistic. I made it "some" commentators to balance the phrase I added that other commentators thought that was too "simplistic." The Hoover / NRA section that explained how the NRA came about preceeded a discussion of the NRA. That was weird, so I moved the Hoover paragraph up to flow from the critics section and establish what the NRA was before defenders of the New Deal get to respond, which ends the section more coherently. I moved up the link to Fascism and Ideology to the section where the main conservative/libertarian ideological critics of the New Deal are reviewed. Did not delete anyhting.--Cberlet 14:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

On first read, I think I can live with your changes, including the link, although I feel that still belongs in See Also - otherwise good restructure from first reading. --Northmeister 00:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling it Fascism versus Corporo-Militaristic Statism (or some such) merely because one requires a Dictatorship/One-Party-Rule is really an exercise in semantics. It seems merely to draw a line the fascism is "bad" Statism, while all other highly evolved, power-centric forms of Statism get off more lightly. It makes little difference if the jack boot is a nice bright color, and the gun barrels have flowers entwined around them. Setting aside semantics, Statism itself is the issue. Sometimes zealots seize control, and bloodletting ensues, but such seizure can only occur once the Statist bedrock has been lain. Simply put, the US in the 30's and 40's was fascistic, it sought to devolve power to the Federal level, and very much for economic reasons, and that's as simply put as it can get. Fascism is an economic function. Dictatorship is a political function. And you can have a fascistic presence while having a democratic system, hence why we have a $50 Trillion accrual basis debt, state control of money, interest, and inflation. Laws and regulations have gone through the roof, and the Federal government is as powerful as it has ever been. It is basically a 25% shareholder of the US economy, not simply as a recipient of taxes, but as a prime mover of the economy itself. It has a military presence in just about every part of the globe, and fights wars to based on dollar diplomacy and protecting access to resources with favorable circumstances. And the two-party system has been backing this approach by and large. So if it's not fascism, it's still a blighted system where freedoms have evaporated, here and abroad. It matters little what you call it.--66.73.52.194 21:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of the term

I'm trying to give a German translation of “new deal”. What's the meaning of it? Does it mean “new agreement” or “fresh playing cards”?

Thanks, 82.135.93.94 17:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

Renominated. Article is of excellent standard, prose is compelling. Please leave comments on the FAC page. --ISpyFace 02:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Communitsts in the New Deal

This section really needs good sourcing to back up its claims. Without sources, it appears to make broad generalizations about the actual influence and pervasiveness of Communists in New Deal programs. The section might be a NPOV violation without reputable and verifiable sources. I tagged it Original Research to underscore this problem. Thanks. --NightMonkey 02:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow this section is terrible!!!

Aceofspades, Refining Wikipedia one edit at a time

I added the requested citations and some new info Rjensen 08:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

ambiguous phrase in intro

In the intro it says "The opponents of the New Deal, complaining of the cost and the shift of power to Washington, stopped its expansion after 1937, and abolished many of its programs by 1943." what expansion was stopped.. the expansion of the opponents, of the expansion of the New Deal? the wording is ambiguous.. Mlm42 07:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Milton Friedman praised new deal?

Milton Friedman's Wiki page quotes him as saying in 2006: "You know, it's a mystery as to why people think Roosevelt's policies pulled us out of the Depression". This would seem to refute support from Milton Friedman. It might be appropriate to state that he earlier supported the new deal but later recanted, but the current text is simply wrong.

Friedman said the relief programs were "appropriate" and noted he and his wife were employed by them years and they were a lifesaver for them. By 1940 he was a top advisor to the New Deal on economic policy--he says he was a Keynesian then. His later criticisms centered on NRA (which was dead by the time he became a New Dealer in 1935) and farm programs. He often took credit for raising taxes in ww2 via payroll deduction system. Rjensen 05:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If you check this interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/int_miltonfriedman.html#7

you will see that he equivocates about his support -- suggesting that his support was more to do with his own personal circumstances.

It may be his memory was weak at age 93, but he did say: "You have to distinguish between two classes of New Deal policies. One class of New Deal policies was reform: wage and price control, the Blue Eagle, the national industrial recovery movement. I did not support those. The other part of the new deal policy was relief and recovery... 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. INTERVIEWER: But why did you support those? MILTON FRIEDMAN: Because it was a very exceptional circumstance. We'd gotten into an extraordinarily difficult situation, unprecedented in the nation's history. You had millions of people out of work. Something had to be done; it was intolerable. And it was a case in which, unlike most cases, the short run deserved to dominate." As a professor and senior Treasury advisor in his early 30s, he was not

a naive kid. Rjensen 05:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

hey this is cool

Random words

So as I was reading this article on the New Deal, I noticed an amount of random words and marks. In the first paragraph alone, there is a series of exclamation marks after some words and at the end of that paragraph, there is a series of exclamation marks and words that seem to have no bearing whatsoever on this article. Reading through more, there are more cases like that. When I tried to edit the page to remove it, I could find it nowhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.169.217.22 (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

black thursday

the article cites that "black tuesday" was the day of the crash in the stock market, although this day. the 24th of October 1929 is black thursday, as is correct in other great depression articles

Layla.meh 04:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Layla.meh

dangerous sources: Siegan was judicial activist

Conservative Judge Robert H. Bork cautioned in a 1985 speech that Professor Siegan's economic ideas could engender "a massive shift away from democracy and toward judicial rule." Siegan, who died recently, was a lawyer not an economist. His book on 1930s appeared in 1980 and was not conversant with economic history. See his obit at [3] Rjensen 17:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

POV concerns over chart at top of article

I place a POV banner above the chart at the top of the article. First I think it goes into original research territory for one of us to draw our own trendline on a chart. Second, it's POV because that is only one part of the picture. There is more to an economy than GDP. There should also be a chart unemployment picture. Instantiayion 03:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Rjensen has now added a manufacturing employment chart. It's POV to only select one sector of employment. To be NPOV it needs to be an overall unemployment chart. Instantiayion 03:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition Rjensen is making charts that stop at 1940, which prevent us from seeing the recovery. We need to see context for these to be NPOV. Instantiayion 03:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If Instantiayion has some more informative data he's keeping it secret. That secrecy violated Wiki rules--he must tell us his reliable sources or not use them. Rjensen 03:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who isn't sure of what I'm talking about, read "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrel Huff. Instantiayion 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

balancing POV

This is a historical article and does not deal with current events--everyone is dead. The historiography is very large, with thousands of books and articles. We cannot allow the piece to become unbalanced--it is one of the most important in Wikipedia and many students rely upon it. If people want to add a comment or criticism or praise from the right (or left) , they must balance it with evidence from the other side, or the article becomes unbalanced and will be deleted. Anyone who is serious about the topic will be able to do this. Rjensen 15:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Straight out facts are not criticisms. You just can't handle the facts so you're deleting. This article does need more criticisms though. It is written in a way that praises the New Deal and the sources are biased in favor of it. You deleting sourced information as you are doing is making it even more biased in favor of the New Deal. Regulations 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And the gall you have to to delete the fact that Milton Friedman opposed the New Deal while leaving in that he supported parts of the New Deal when his thinking was not as sophisticated yet. Regulations 15:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Relax, I can handle all the facts. I am not biased in favor of the New Deal. The debate here is about numbers that every economist agrees on (and where there is disagreement, as in unemployment, two sets are given) The deletion was a Friedman quote out of place (the article was talking about relief and it quoted Friedman on relief policies.) Let's keep the NPOV goal in mind please. If there is a sentence that is inappropriate, please identify it. Rjensen 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Rjensen! I have been watching an edit war/flame war/troll war on another page, and I thank you very much for working to maintain the civility and dignity of Wikipedia discourse. --SECurtisTX | talk 15:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)