Barack Obama

Obama's New New Deal: As Bad as the Old New Deal

|

Despite trying "real hard," President Obama is dealing with another round of anemic job numbers. If only he had paid attention back in 2008 when we expalined how his new New Deal policies were destined to fail.

Original text below:

On the cusp of a deep economic recession, and with a staggering amount of bailout money being offered to struggling industries, pundits and political advisers are advocating that the incoming Obama administration construct a new New Deal.

But is the popular narrative about the old New Deal-that Keynesian economics and top-down planning rescued America from the Great Depression-accurate? Reason.tv's Michael C. Moynihan talks to UCLA economist Lee Ohanian, who argues in work written with colleague Harold Cole, that the New Deal's massive intervention into the economy actually prolonged the economic crisis by seven years.

NEXT: Sheldon Richman on the Supreme Court's Dismal ObamaCare Decision

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. More proof that Obama’s a pathological liar, unable to tell reality from fantasy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded

    “You know what, I might be worried about all this money being spent if it wasn’t for my memories of previous campaigns,” Obama said. “That first campaign I ran, that last campaign I ran in 2008, I’ve been outspent before.”

    According to an ABC News story published Dec. 5, 2008, here are the 2008 campaign totals:

    John McCain campaign ? $238 million

    Federal matching funds ? $50 million

    TOTAL ? $288 million

    Obama campaign ? $750 million

    According to ABC, not only did Obama raise more money than McCain by a huge margin, he outraised both George W. Bush and John Kerry’s combined 2004 total.

    1. Why do you hate brown people, VG?

    2. “That first campaign I ran, that last campaign I ran in 2008, I’ve been outspent before.”

      That’s not a lie! The only declarative statement there is, “I’ve been outspent before.” The rest of that quote is composed of entirely unrelated sentence fragments. You’re just sticking objects where they don’t belong.

      1. If it came from Obama… it’s a lie.

      2. You know who else stuck objects where they didn’t belong?

        1. Still Obama.

      3. “The only declarative statement there is, “I’ve been outspent before.” The rest of that quote is composed of entirely unrelated sentence fragments. You’re just sticking objects where they don’t belong.”

        . . . Noam Chomsky, zat you?

    3. VG, you didn’t read that right. Those should be read as three separate thoughts. He was simply remembering the last time he and his wife went out to dinner and she ate the entire restaurant.

      1. AND stiffed on the bill, anon.

        1. Well, I can’t say that I don’t understand why he wouldn’t say anything about it. Would *you* challenge that she-beast?

          1. They have a name, you know. They’re called Wookiees, and they’ll thank you to use the proper terminology.

            1. More Klingon than Wookie.

    4. More proof that Obama’s a pathological liar, unable to tell reality from fantasy.

      Obama is under no delusions. He is a sociopath; willing to lie or perform an act, no matter how unethical, if he believes it will advance his own interest.

      1. The only thing more laughable than the idea that Obama cares about big money in politics is the idea that he gives a shit about the American economy.

        All he gets about is that he gets reelected. And if that were to somehow happen, he would be more than happy to drive our economy into the ground permanently.

        1. He cares about big money in politics alright. He thinks it’s great as long as he’s got multiples more than anyone else.

      2. I remember when conservatives were getting real terrified of Obama and I assured them he’s just another dumb white liberal. I’m more than ready to say I was wrong and they were close to right.

        1. Your problem is that you just don’t hear Obama’s music, which confuses him.

          http://newsbusters.org/blogs/b…..blem-obama

          1. The second half was just heavy authority fellatio. The first half was actually surreal.

        2. and I assured them he’s just another dumb white liberal. I’m more than ready to say I was wrong and they were close to right.

          I am confused as to why “dumb white” leftists are not to be feared when it comes to Keynesian economic policies.

          FDR was far worse then Obama ever will be.

          1. Not for a lack of trying on Obama’s part.

      3. Most politicians are sociopaths masquerading as messiahs.

      4. He is a sociopath; willing to lie or perform an act, no matter how unethical, if he believes it will advance his own interest.

        HM why do you hate black peo…..wait what…..?

      5. He is a sociopath

        let’s build on this: having exhausted all of the plausible/rational reasons for why Obama’s policy efforts have failed (as most of us define failure), it is time to consider what may seem implausible/irrational – that the results we’ve seen are what this guy has intended to create.

        When you try something and, by standard definition, it fails, you do not redouble efforts in the same direction unless your goal is more of what is happening. This is the same administration encouraging more folks to get on food stamps.

        1. They’ll turn us all into beggars ’cause they’re easier to please

          For Obama, these are words to live (and govern) by.

        2. Obama is not a sociopath. Clinton was more of a sociopath perfectly willing to abandon his “beliefs” for reelection.

          Obama would no matter under any circumstances say the era of big government is over. Even if it would guarantee him the election.

          Obama believes his bullshit.
          You do not have to be a sociopath to be a liar….you just have to believe a little lie (or ignore a little truth) for the greater good is worth it.

    5. “A man who never told the truth when a lie would suffice.”

      Who is this quote about: Barack Hussein Obama? Or Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

  2. “[W]e haven’t gotten the Republicans to engage on a whole range of issues that, I wish had happened,” Obama said

    With all due respect, what does that even mean?

    1. Most things politicians say don’t actually mean anything. They are simply focus group-tested words strung together in grammatically correct sentences.

    2. He means ‘stop disagreeing with me’.

    3. With all due respect, what does that even mean?

      that the Repubs did not bow down before him and agree with everything he said. He’s not after engagement; he is after capitulation.

    4. “With all due respect, what does that even mean?”

      It means Obama’s trying to fan the flames of self-delusion among the Left, whereby everything was poeaches cream until the stupid serfs went and ruined democracy by voting non-Democrats into the House majority back when;
      “Oh, Obama’s policies aren’t working, not through any fault of design, but because there’s REICH-WING AMERIKKAN RETHUGLICANZZZ in Congress!”

  3. Sounds like a pretty crazy deal to me dude. Wow.

    http://www.Privacy-Top.tk

  4. The New Deal didn’t work, because if it had then libertarianism would seem like a steaming pile of horseshit. QED.

    1. It’s working pretty well in Greece, Spain, etc. right now. Good point!!

    2. That’s a loopy statement even by your usually low standards of loopieness. Might want to back off the amyl nitrate for a while until the dizzieness subsides.

    3. Yes, because what the American people need are more excise taxes!

      Tony w/spaces, you are the worst sockpuppet ever.

      1. He’s also a bigot. The bonuses just keep coming!

    4. If New Dealers were right, then Libertarians would be wrong, but New Dealers were not right so……

      Do I have that right?

      1. The “the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression” claim is nonsense that flies in the face of the overwhelming consensus of economists and historians. It relies on the false claim that the GD was like any other recession and not (like the current situation) the result of a financial crash.

        The New Deal wasn’t a perfect solution (like today’s stimulus), and wasn’t, in the end, large enough (again, like today’s). What everyone not engaging in ideological doubletalk agrees is that WWII, an even bigger government spending and jobs program, is what ended the Depression–not to mention, coupled with huge postwar national programs, create enough strong growth to deliver the world it’s strongest broadly shared prosperity in history. What about this generally accepted narrative confirms libertarian beliefs? What about the past century of economic data does? Nothing, because you are wrong. You are wrong, in part, because you approach these things as moral busybodies and tack on a theory of economics to fit those moral obsessions. It is bound to fail by a lack of concern for empirical facts.

        1. “The New Deal wasn’t a perfect solution, so we need to keep trying it until it becomes perfect.

          Bwahaha.

          “a perfect solution (like today’s stimulus)”

          Double bwahaha.

          “you approach these things as moral busybodies”

          No, that would be social-conservatives.

        2. The problem, Tony, is that if this was true, Japan’s postcrash history would have been much different.

          Japan tried “Just keep making the stimulus bigger” and it never worked.

          The Austrian school says that recovery comes when balance sheets are repaired. And WWII wasn’t just a big spending exercise – it was also a 4 year exercise in forced savings. Wartime rationing and war bond buying forced the citizenry to consume dramatically less than it produced, and built up a massive overhang of savings.

          That’s why the Keynesian predictions of a massive postwar recession didn’t materialize. Because the government spending wasn’t nearly as important as they theorized. Not in the face of the savings overhang.

          1. Why do you hate brown children, Fluffy?

          2. Don’t forget the fact that we basically had the last standing industrial base. As much of the recovery after WWII was due to the fact that we were helping to fix Europe as anything else. Oh, and the mass labor shortage caused by six years of war didn’t hurt, either.

            Of course, all we had to do to set up those conditions was kill 50 million people and basically destroy dozens of countries. The recovery after WWII is the broken window theory writ large.

            1. *broken window fallacy

            2. Er… the recovery didn’t happen until the labor shortage was relieved by bringing the men back from overseas.

              1. It should be noted that when McCarthy was in charge of Japan, he tried to implement the New Deal. Japan tanked and only turned around when McCarthy was shown the door.

              2. Even with the men back, there was still a fairly significant labor shortage. That’s why wages were so good.

        3. WWII, an even bigger government spending and jobs program, is what ended the Depression

          Lies. The only metric that really matters-standard of living-did not improve until after WW2 ended. Once again, you demonstrate you are a know-nothing piece of shit Toney.

          PS FDR’s treasury secretary agrees with me suck it.

          1. Wasn’t there someone else in FDR’s admin with common sense, who talked FDR out of a 100% tax on the filthy-rich?

            1. Not sure. If even a few people with common sense can exist in FDR’s government, it gives me hope.

              1. Here it is:

                http://www.tompaine.com/articl….._glory.php

                Second link:

                http://www.deuceofclubs.com/bo….._folly.htm

                Money shot:

                Personal income tax rates hit 91 percent, and corporate excess profts taxes hit 95 percent.
                Meanwhile, on April 27, 1942, FDR issued a message to Congress in which he declared, “No American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year.” The Treasury Department submitted to the House Ways and Means Committee a memorandum calling for a 100 percent tax on incomes over $25,000.

                No wonder leftists revere FDR.

                1. Found it! It was this, from FDR’s Treasury guy, Henry Morgenthau:

                  We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ? somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. ? I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ? And an enormous debt to boot.

                  1. Unfortunately, the 100% tax was the only one Morgenthau WAS against:

                    We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be….. I don’t pay what I should. People in my class don’t. People who have it should pay.

                    Then again, the FDR era was chockablock with socialists and wealth-haters… funny how history repeats itself.

          2. What ended the GD was Roosevelt getting rolled up the disabled access ramp to the gates of hell, and his dirigiste central state along with him.

        4. The “the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression” claim is nonsense that flies in the face of the overwhelming consensus of economists and historians.

          Glad Tony w/spaces didn’t say something truly outrageous like the claim flies in the face of the facts.

          It relies on the false claim that the GD was like any other recession and not (like the current situation) the result of a financial crash.

          Can I have another spoonful of that tasty, tasty, special pleading?

          The New Deal wasn’t a perfect solution (like today’s stimulus), and wasn’t, in the end, large enough (again, like today’s).

          Yes, tax us harder, harder, HARDER!

          What everyone not engaging in ideological doubletalk agrees is that WWII, an even bigger government spending and jobs program, is what ended the Depression–not to mention, coupled with huge postwar national programs, create enough strong growth to deliver the world it’s strongest broadly shared prosperity in history.

          Yes, destroying your economic competitors and sending a large portion of the viable workforce off to die are the keys to a strong economy. America Uber Alles, Herr Tony w/spaces.

        5. So lets get this straight.

          People said spending in the great depression prolonged the great depression and they said if we did it in 2009 it would happen again.

          It happened again just as predicted yet the Keynesian said we should have 5% unemployment now which never happened.

          Tony claims that it is nonsense.

          The sharp run-up in public sector debt will likely prove one of the most enduring legacies of the 2007?2009 financial crises in the United States and elsewhere. We examine the experience of 44 countries spanning up to two centuries of data on central government debt, inflation and growth. Our main finding is that across both advanced countries and emerging markets, high debt/GDP levels (90 percent and above) are associated with notably lower growth outcomes.

          http://www.nber.org/papers/w15639

        6. Historically minded readers may be saying, “There was a Depression in 1946? I never heard about that.” You never heard of it because it never happened. However, the “Depression of 1946” may be one of the most widely predicted events that never happened in American history. As the war was winding down, leading Keynesian economists of the day argued, as Alvin Hansen did, that “the government cannot just disband the Army, close down munitions factories, stop building ships, and remove all economic controls.” After all, the belief was that the only thing that finally ended the Great Depression of the 1930s was the dramatic increase in government involvement in the economy. In fact, Hansen’s advice went unheeded. Government canceled war contracts, and its spending fell from $84 billion in 1945 to under $30 billion in 1946. By 1947, the government was paying back its massive wartime debts by running a budget surplus of close to 6 percent of GDP. The military released around 10 million Americans back into civilian life. Most economic controls were lifted, and all were gone less than a year after V-J Day. In short, the economy underwent what the historian Jack Stokes Ballard refers to as the “shock of peace.” From the economy’s perspective, it was the “shock of de-stimulus.”

          Tony why does the history and economics of the 1940s disagree with your historians and economists?

    5. For once, I sympathize with you, Tony. I think the New Deal worked like a charm, it’s just that its goals weren’t what was publicly stated. FDR was elected to an unprecedented four terms. It worked, QED

    6. For once, I sympathize with you, Tony. I think the New Deal worked like a charm, it’s just that its goals weren’t what was publicly stated. FDR was elected to an unprecedented four terms. It worked, QED

  5. Plus ?a change, plus c’est la m?me chose.

    The policies which Keynes recommended were already then very close to the time when their inevitable consequences would be apparent and their continuation would be impossible. Even the most fanatical Keynesians do not dare to say that present-day England’s distress is an effect of too much saving and insufficient spending. The essence of the much glorified “progressive” economic policies of the last decades was to expropriate ever-increasing parts of the higher incomes and to employ the funds thus raised for financing public waste and for subsidizing the members of the most powerful pressure groups. . .

    Now this process has reached its end. With the present tax rates and the methods applied in the control of prices, profits and interest rates, the system has liquidated itself. Even the confiscation of every penny earned above 1,000 pounds a year will not provide any perceptible increase to Great Britain’s public revenue. The most bigoted Fabians cannot fail to realize that henceforth funds for public spending must be taken from the same people who are supposed to profit from it. Great Britain has reached the limit both of monetary expansionism and of spending.

    Even Mises was too optimistic about lessons being learned.

  6. Moynihan’s back? Oh, Happy Day!

    This almost makes up for that stupid decision on ACA last week. 🙁

  7. If you can convince a Keynesian that production comes before consumption, there’s a strong chance the guy will be an Austro-libertarian before the next election cycle.

    But that’s the rub: the ivory tower demands that reality adjust itself to Keynesianism, so mass unemployment and hyperinflation remain the tour de force of statists.

  8. Learn how to make money using Google. You can monetize your searching skills and earn up to $375 per hour working for this billion dollar company. You choose your working hours. Details can be found here xurl.es/dyp7n

    1. I am interest, and would like for receiving newsletter.

  9. Then continue to New York ( http://www.nbajerseyscheap.net…..rseys.html ) in the second the beginning of the year, Perkins play the other three quarters in a 12-0 run, eventually gave them a 6 point lead to pull the Silver Star, near the midpoint.

  10. Everyone! Look at the big things the government is going to do for us!

  11. Look at the big things the government is going to do to us!

    FIFY’d.

  12. With ‘freedom’ in fashion, is libertarianism back?

    http://news.yahoo.com/freedom-…..34889.html

    If by “in fashion” you mean hated and ridiculed universally by the left and right and if you mean by “back” that it never really existed as a popular political philosophy then yes liberty is back and in fashion.

    I am guessing that Romney is not going to say anything terribly bad about libertarians until he is elected…

    That is pretty much the extent of what we will get of him.

  13. for decades on wacky stats and context-free claims to http://www.lunettesporto.com/l…..-3_23.html justify banning some drugs while rubber-stamping the sale of others. Fuzzy campaign promises aside, the Obama administration is no different. Here are three accounting tricks federal agencies under Oba

  14. On the cusp of a deep economic recession, and with a staggering amount of bailout money being offered to struggling industries, pundits and political advisers are advocating that the incoming Obama administration construct a new New Deal.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.