Talk:New Deal/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"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)