FDR might have been many things being a fascist was not one of them.

Your statement that FDR turned America into a “fascist state” is so absurd and shows me that your a fool, well read, but still a fool. Do you know what fascism is?

I over 80% of my mothers family lived and died by the hands of the Nazis during WW2, don’t lecture me on fascism.

Also you left out the part about the Federal Reserve Banks being run by the same people who owned the banks during the period you sited. A little over site on your part.

FDR was no fascist. In FDR’s day we had Mussolini, Franco, and Hitler, in Russia it was Stalin. I’ll take FDR any day of the week over them.

Saying FDR “turned America into fascist state too” shows me your a fool, well read but a fool nonetheless.

As for the bubble analogy, well go figure, greed and the herd mentality create economic instability.

Andrew Jackson also killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children of the Cherokee nation in the forced march west known as the trail of tears.

Do you know what fascism is? FDR didn’t “save democracy”, he turned America into fascist state too.

“Democracy” was saved by his _death_.

Mr. Krugman made the point that at the time the movie was made there was banking insurance, etc. that would have protected accounts, and so therefore, the idea of a run on the bank couldn’t have have happened. Well, the film was indeed released in 1946, after WWII, at a time of insurance for accounts. The scene of the run on the bank, however, was set around 1932. Jimmy Stuart’s character, George, attended his brother’s high school graduation in 1928, and four years later George and Mary got married and used their $2,000 honeymoon money to protect the Building and Loan’s accounts to keep them from being bought by Mr. Potter and his ugly bank dealings. It is very plausible and possible that in 1932 the events in the movie could have happened.
Thanks for listening, I have a special place in my heart for this film!

According to Mr Mankiew – hardly a ’socialist’

‘Probably the most important source of recovery after 1933 was monetary expansion, eased by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision to abandon the gold standard and devalue the dollar. From 1933 to 1937, the money supply rose, stopping the deflation. Production in the economy grew about 10 percent a year, three times its normal rate.’

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/business/26view.html?_r=1

FDR turned from his own policies in 36 -37. Causing in part ’round 2′.

Many of his programs were doomed to fail and did – but I dont buy the free markets dogma. In free markets wealth always trickles up. The upper class controls govt – just like they do now. Just like ‘TR’ fought against.

He gave people hope. I remember the his picture on the wall of my grandparents. While Germany turned to nationalism – FDR in the opinion of many – saved democracy from turning to facism.

The word ‘leader’ comes to mind. Not like out fearless leader today. Where has he been for the last few months?

In Peru making sure we can outsource more jobs.

Or didn’t you notice that the Federal Reserve was founded in 1913, and it took only 20 years to achieve the Great Depression? Stagflation? Bubble-and-burst after bubble-and-burst ever since?

Every single purpose given for the founding of the Federal Reserve (price stability? _preventing_ depressions?) has failed in SPADES since it was founded. This is exactly what happened after the First and Second Banks of the United States were established, and the specific reasons cited in Andrew Jackson’s veto of the Second Bank.

It’s clear that the only other “economist” that Krugman has ever read was Keynes, what’s your excuse?

Go look up the depression of 1836. Just as awful a monetary contraction as 1929, and lasted only 6 months instead of 17 years. The reason: Andrew Jackson’s Veto. Read it.

Oh yes, I’ve looked at history.

Not the printing of money.
If the government did not intervene it would have been a lot worse.

I have a question for you Bob, how is that you know better than Professor of Economics and Nobel Prize winner?

If I had to chose between the two of you, well Paul has been right about a lot of what is happening now, and he has warned about this for years.

Since this depression was caused by the printing of money and government intervention in the economy, how can printing more money and having more government intervention do anything but make it worse?

Also, he cites healthcare costs as the unique advantage of the Japanese car companies over the big three. What about the 8,000 workers that gm pays to stay home, do the Japanese auto companies do that? And when it comes to healthcare why does Mr. Krugman not choose German auto companies as a comparison?

Thanks…twarren, st louis mo

I would hope that Mr. Evans would consider the value of Medicare for seniors who consider it a godsend that has greatly improved their quality of life and extended their life spans. Amending Medicare to cover pregnant women and children would be a significant economic and psychological boost for families during the current economic crises when parental attention is focused on retaining jobs, paying mortgages, and funding retirements. In addition it would provide a healthier work force by early attention to health life styles and chronic childhood problems such as asthma, diabetes, obesity, autism, etc. (I still remember my 8 year old daughter pestering me about smoking.)

I would also hope that Mr. Evans would think of the military returning from combat zones having to deal with their health problems. It is clear that the military and Veterans Administration do not have the wherewithal to handle these problems in a medically timely manner. It is also clear from the latest information on Agent Orange that today’s combat zones can cause medical problems that arise years after combat. It seems only just to include returning combat military in Medicare for the rest of their lives as part of our contract with them for fighting in a combat zone.

I am surprised that no one asked him nor did he say that when government spending goes up, expecially if it borrows more and prints more money, its money is worth less and less; inflation increases whoppingly. And who suffers the most from inflation – the poor.

Any economic program must address this problem.

Sincerely,
Carol Weinstein

I am surprised that no one asked him nor did he say that when government spending goes up, expecially if it borrows more and prints more money, its money is worth less and less; inflation increases whoppingly. And who suffers the most from inflation – the poor.

Any economic program must address this problem.