What themes stood out most to you in the assigned readings and lecture this week? What questions did the lectures and readings raise for you? Please post your responses in the comment section below.
I thought it was interesting how drastically different FDR's approach to presidency was from any others before him. I also find it interesting how he beat Hoover by a landslide in the election. Was his large government intervention strongly supported by most Americans? Or were there still many people that thought the government should have a laissez faire strategy, and let the economy fix itself?
I was most interested in the controversy involved with FDR's implementation of the New Deal. Some of his programs, including the Agricultural Adjustment Act, were later declared unconstitutional. He followed Hoover's lead with some programs but very much radicalized their implementation. A question to consider would be whether FDR and his policies were only so widely accepted because of the desperate economic situation of the United States. Would Roosevelt have gotten away with his executive actions in another economic climate?
I think it is important that FDR realized the scope of the depression. Everyone was effected by the economic conditions, even the veterans shown in the Bonus Army. People wanted change badly, which is why FDR's inaugural was so important. He displayed strength and showed he was going to fight. He gave them change but did he intervene too much in doing so?
Something that stood out to me the most this week was the sheer scale of FDR's New Deal. The massive program he implemented reached and impacted every corner of the United States. Politically, passing 16 pieces of legislation in his first 100 days as President is unheard of. Getting full cooperation from Congress and being able to process that many laws in such a short period of time shows how truly drastic the measures taken to fix the economy needed to be. But in this process of salvaging America's economy, did any group at all oppose FDR's grand plan?
The theme that stood out to me this week was FDR's ability to create and establish so many programs during his first one hundred days. In his inauguration speech, he declared war on the depression and would use executive power to fight it if necessary. However, the Supreme Court did not agree with all of his actions, ruling that some of his programs, such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act, were unconstitutional. While many of his programs were successful, some did fail. Did FDR try to implement too many programs? Should he have just focused on making sure the important ones were perfect?
One thing that i found especially interesting in the week's discussion on the New Deal was how these programs were implemented for the first time on such a grand scale. This suggests the extreme scale of the depression itself, and how deep the depression was in the country. It is interesting to consider that before FDR, Hoover was the most interventionist president in terms of government during periods of recession and depression before. Many of Hoover's programs were used and expanded upon, and many of the things that Hoover started had very good intentions. However, I think that, while clearly Hoover underestimated the extent of the depression, that even FDR also may have, which could be just him trying to be a moderate interventionist in the way of revolutionary methods to maintain pre-existing systems. My question is this: Would the New Deal programs have worked if the depression was not directly followed by a world war? How did the New Deal programs allow for the country to be ready when the war started, and how did this help stimulate the economy?
I thought it was interesting to see the lasting impacts of new deal policies today. Many of FDR's policies still shape the American economy. The system of artificially managed agricultural prices is still a major part of the American economy. Certain aspects of his banking policy, like federally insured deposits, are essential to modern America. The TVA is an indispensable part of the southern infrastructure and economy. I am wondering to what extent the Great depression ended by the new deal or by WWII defense spending
I found very interesting to approach Hoover's policies from the lens that no one truly knew how deep the Great Depression was, and to analyze the similarities between FDR's policies and Hoover's earlier efforts. One question that I had this week was about how economic thought has evolved since the Great Depression and how effectively we were able to respond to the recent Great Recession? Also, how do Great Depression policies connect to the recent Great Recession policies, if at all?
This week we learned about the New Deal. What I found most interesting was how the recurring theme of federal government intervention in business came into play with a new twist. Prior to the Roosevelt administration their was much debate about the role of the president in the economy and in labor disputes. Most presidents to this point had taken a laize fare approach to the economy. Additionally most of the presidents typically had sided with big business in labor disputes. This was not the case with FDR. Almost immediately upon taking office, FDR shut down all banks and gave himself the power to approve all major domestic and international transactions occurring with banks. This was an unprecedented intrusion into the workings of the American Economic Order. Roosevelt also passed legislation in support of workers and banned the federal government from sending troops to break up strikes which had occurred in the past under other presidents. FDR sided with laborers in the hopes of giving them more purchasing power which he believed beneficial to the economy. My question is whether the New Deal programs actually helped pull the U.S. out of the Great Depression or did it just give that appearance to the general public? Was appearance enough?
An interesting point this week was the fact that Roosevelt faced opposition from both ends of the political spectrum. From the right there was criticism suggesting that Roosevelt was trying to establish a socialist state and take over business, and that the New Deal was reaching too far by funding corporations in order to stimulate the economy. However, the left felt that the New Deal didn’t go far enough. For example, Charles E. Coughlin suggested that the Depression was the fault of Wall Street bankers, and thought that serious government action should be taken against them. Huey Long advocated the Share the Wealth movement, in which fortunes would be confiscated from those with an income of 1-5 million dollars annually. Francis Townsend wanted to focus on creating purchasing power by giving allowances to be spent within the month to citizens over 65 in order to stimulate the economy. What kind of opposition did these movements face from the right?
The theme that stood out the most for me this week was the amount of programs FDR established to save the country. In his inaugural speech, he addresses the current problems of our nation being the speculation of what is truly being done with people's money in the banks, and to make sure the currency is solved. He looked at the depression as being a foreign enemy, and he attacked it as if he was fighting a battle. FDR created many policies, but the most important (in my opinion) was the creation of the National Recovery Association. The goal of this association was to prevent cartelization and monopolies. My question is as the federal government gave workers the right to strike and collectively bargain, specifically in the workplace did this change the relationship from boss to workers? Yes, it obviously changed the workers' actions because now they could fight for their rights, but I am curious to how bosses reacted specifically to the federal government's action.
I thought that the comparisons between FRD and Hoover were some of the most interesting topics of lecture and readings this week. With the RFC and the emergency relief and construction act, Hoover targeted banks and then creating jobs. This was actually the same strategy as FDR, the only difference being the scale (Roosevelt committed much more money to his projects). Why were these two men perceived so differently when they actually had similar goals?
Something that really stood out to me during the lectures this week was the fact that Hoover did take an active approach in trying to fix the economy. However, his tactics were not far reaching enough. Hoover did not understand the depth of the great depression. FDR greatly contrasted Hoover in that his tactics to combat the failing economy were very extensive. In his first 100 days of presidency, FDR implemented many programs, some of which were controversial. FDR established a new precedent for the federal government's role in economic processes. One question that I have is that would FDR have been so widely popular if the economic situation in America during the time wasn't so dire?
I thought it was interesting how everyone has thought that FDR's ideas were so different from everybody else's, but you can see the traces of Hoover and his ideas in them. FDR was so popular because he took such an active role in the recovery from the Great Depression, my question is what would happen if there wasn't the Great Depression? Would he and his ideas still be popular?
I thought it was interesting how drastically different FDR's approach to presidency was from any others before him. I also find it interesting how he beat Hoover by a landslide in the election. Was his large government intervention strongly supported by most Americans? Or were there still many people that thought the government should have a laissez faire strategy, and let the economy fix itself?
ReplyDeleteI was most interested in the controversy involved with FDR's implementation of the New Deal. Some of his programs, including the Agricultural Adjustment Act, were later declared unconstitutional. He followed Hoover's lead with some programs but very much radicalized their implementation. A question to consider would be whether FDR and his policies were only so widely accepted because of the desperate economic situation of the United States. Would Roosevelt have gotten away with his executive actions in another economic climate?
ReplyDeleteI think it is important that FDR realized the scope of the depression. Everyone was effected by the economic conditions, even the veterans shown in the Bonus Army. People wanted change badly, which is why FDR's inaugural was so important. He displayed strength and showed he was going to fight. He gave them change but did he intervene too much in doing so?
ReplyDeleteSomething that stood out to me the most this week was the sheer scale of FDR's New Deal. The massive program he implemented reached and impacted every corner of the United States. Politically, passing 16 pieces of legislation in his first 100 days as President is unheard of. Getting full cooperation from Congress and being able to process that many laws in such a short period of time shows how truly drastic the measures taken to fix the economy needed to be. But in this process of salvaging America's economy, did any group at all oppose FDR's grand plan?
ReplyDeleteThe theme that stood out to me this week was FDR's ability to create and establish so many programs during his first one hundred days. In his inauguration speech, he declared war on the depression and would use executive power to fight it if necessary. However, the Supreme Court did not agree with all of his actions, ruling that some of his programs, such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act, were unconstitutional. While many of his programs were successful, some did fail. Did FDR try to implement too many programs? Should he have just focused on making sure the important ones were perfect?
ReplyDeleteOne thing that i found especially interesting in the week's discussion on the New Deal was how these programs were implemented for the first time on such a grand scale. This suggests the extreme scale of the depression itself, and how deep the depression was in the country. It is interesting to consider that before FDR, Hoover was the most interventionist president in terms of government during periods of recession and depression before. Many of Hoover's programs were used and expanded upon, and many of the things that Hoover started had very good intentions. However, I think that, while clearly Hoover underestimated the extent of the depression, that even FDR also may have, which could be just him trying to be a moderate interventionist in the way of revolutionary methods to maintain pre-existing systems. My question is this: Would the New Deal programs have worked if the depression was not directly followed by a world war? How did the New Deal programs allow for the country to be ready when the war started, and how did this help stimulate the economy?
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting to see the lasting impacts of new deal policies today. Many of FDR's policies still shape the American economy. The system of artificially managed agricultural prices is still a major part of the American economy. Certain aspects of his banking policy, like federally insured deposits, are essential to modern America. The TVA is an indispensable part of the southern infrastructure and economy. I am wondering to what extent the Great depression ended by the new deal or by WWII defense spending
ReplyDeleteI found very interesting to approach Hoover's policies from the lens that no one truly knew how deep the Great Depression was, and to analyze the similarities between FDR's policies and Hoover's earlier efforts. One question that I had this week was about how economic thought has evolved since the Great Depression and how effectively we were able to respond to the recent Great Recession? Also, how do Great Depression policies connect to the recent Great Recession policies, if at all?
ReplyDeleteThis week we learned about the New Deal. What I found most interesting was how the recurring theme of federal government intervention in business came into play with a new twist. Prior to the Roosevelt administration their was much debate about the role of the president in the economy and in labor disputes. Most presidents to this point had taken a laize fare approach to the economy. Additionally most of the presidents typically had sided with big business in labor disputes. This was not the case with FDR. Almost immediately upon taking office, FDR shut down all banks and gave himself the power to approve all major domestic and international transactions occurring with banks. This was an unprecedented intrusion into the workings of the American Economic Order. Roosevelt also passed legislation in support of workers and banned the federal government from sending troops to break up strikes which had occurred in the past under other presidents. FDR sided with laborers in the hopes of giving them more purchasing power which he believed beneficial to the economy. My question is whether the New Deal programs actually helped pull the U.S. out of the Great Depression or did it just give that appearance to the general public? Was appearance enough?
ReplyDeleteAn interesting point this week was the fact that Roosevelt faced opposition from both ends of the political spectrum. From the right there was criticism suggesting that Roosevelt was trying to establish a socialist state and take over business, and that the New Deal was reaching too far by funding corporations in order to stimulate the economy. However, the left felt that the New Deal didn’t go far enough. For example, Charles E. Coughlin suggested that the Depression was the fault of Wall Street bankers, and thought that serious government action should be taken against them. Huey Long advocated the Share the Wealth movement, in which fortunes would be confiscated from those with an income of 1-5 million dollars annually. Francis Townsend wanted to focus on creating purchasing power by giving allowances to be spent within the month to citizens over 65 in order to stimulate the economy. What kind of opposition did these movements face from the right?
ReplyDeleteThe theme that stood out the most for me this week was the amount of programs FDR established to save the country. In his inaugural speech, he addresses the current problems of our nation being the speculation of what is truly being done with people's money in the banks, and to make sure the currency is solved. He looked at the depression as being a foreign enemy, and he attacked it as if he was fighting a battle. FDR created many policies, but the most important (in my opinion) was the creation of the National Recovery Association. The goal of this association was to prevent cartelization and monopolies. My question is as the federal government gave workers the right to strike and collectively bargain, specifically in the workplace did this change the relationship from boss to workers? Yes, it obviously changed the workers' actions because now they could fight for their rights, but I am curious to how bosses reacted specifically to the federal government's action.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the comparisons between FRD and Hoover were some of the most interesting topics of lecture and readings this week. With the RFC and the emergency relief and construction act, Hoover targeted banks and then creating jobs. This was actually the same strategy as FDR, the only difference being the scale (Roosevelt committed much more money to his projects). Why were these two men perceived so differently when they actually had similar goals?
ReplyDeleteSomething that really stood out to me during the lectures this week was the fact that Hoover did take an active approach in trying to fix the economy. However, his tactics were not far reaching enough. Hoover did not understand the depth of the great depression. FDR greatly contrasted Hoover in that his tactics to combat the failing economy were very extensive. In his first 100 days of presidency, FDR implemented many programs, some of which were controversial. FDR established a new precedent for the federal government's role in economic processes. One question that I have is that would FDR have been so widely popular if the economic situation in America during the time wasn't so dire?
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting how everyone has thought that FDR's ideas were so different from everybody else's, but you can see the traces of Hoover and his ideas in them. FDR was so popular because he took such an active role in the recovery from the Great Depression, my question is what would happen if there wasn't the Great Depression? Would he and his ideas still be popular?
ReplyDelete