Get real about the New Deal! The destructive mythology of the Great Reset in US public policy

Joe Biden is bringing a picture of FDR into the White House to remind him of the mythology that sustained him on the occasions when he ventured out of his basement on the campaign trail.

Brace yourself for an onslaught of nostalgia for the achievements of FDR. One of them was to recruit academics in numbers to serve on rotation in the administration. And so the academic got an intoxicating sniff of power and influence.

Check out the reality of the Great Reset

Click to access sp1998-01.pdf


Did Hoover really subscribe  to a “hands-off-the-economy,” free-market philosophy? His opponent in the 1932 election, Franklin Roosevelt, didn’t think so. During the campaign, Roosevelt blasted Hoover for spending and taxing too much, boosting the national debt, choking off trade, and putting millions on the dole. He accused the president of “reckless and extravagant” spending, of thinking “that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible,” and of presiding over “the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history.” Roosevelt’s running mate, John Nance Garner, charged that Hoover was “leading the country down the path of socialism.”

Contrary to the conventional view about Hoover, Roosevelt and Garner were absolutely right. The crowning folly of the Hoover administration was the SmootHawley Tariff, passed in June 1930. It came on top of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, which had already put American agriculture in a tailspin during the preceding decade. The most protectionist legislation in U.S. history, Smoot-Hawley virtually closed the borders to foreign goods and ignited a vicious international trade war. 

This entry was posted in American politics, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Get real about the New Deal! The destructive mythology of the Great Reset in US public policy

  1. a happy little debunker

    New Deals, Great Resets – it seems that progressives have ‘one-upped’ the long-hated ‘3 word slogans’ to 2 word slogans.

  2. sabena

    If FDR had left office in March 1941 there would have been little to show for it.Up to that time:-
    1.The recovery from the Great Depression was slower that in other developed countries.
    2.He behaved outrageously in trying to pack the Supreme Court.
    3.He took no steps to strengthen the armed forces.
    4.He took no steps to restrain the progress of the dictators(Hitler,Stalin and the Japanese military staff).

  3. 2dogs

    Australia was hit harder by the Great Depression than the US, but recovered quicker. The UAP government exercised fiscal restraint which freed capital for investment in the expansion of Australia’s manufacturing sector.

  4. Entropy

    Quite so Sabena. If FDR had left office then, he would be remembered as a Neville Chamberlain, except lamer.

    I suspect Dan Andrews will try to hang around as long as possible after his stuff up too, to claim the rebound.

  5. Penny

    Listen to Patrick M Wood on the “Delingpod “ he talks about the Tri Lateral commission formed in 1973 by David Rockefeller, he talks about the World Economic forum leading to the Great Reset
    As far as I can see Australia has 4 members on the Tri Lateral commissions, Allan Gyngell, John R Hewson, Tom Kompas and Michael Wesley, all climate change alarmists
    I am now going to read Patrick Woods books “ Technocracy Rising” and “Technocracy The Hard Road to World Order

  6. Tel

    Hoover’s heavy handed intervention helped extend the Great Depression, and FDR merely did more of what had already failed for Hoover. The alphabet agencies are Hoover’s creation, and the New Deal was merely the Old Deal with new names.

    For example, the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929 gave Hoover the ability to meddle in commodity prices, as a way to keep food artificially expensive (but why?!?) … then FDR came along with the all new and improved Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 … and guess what he did? Ohhh he meddled with commodity prices to keep food artificially expensive. Then FDR gave himself even more meddling powers with a second round of AAA in 1938 (the Supreme Court got wind of what he was up to and found it unconstitutional, but he dodged around those guys).

  7. egg_

    IIRC a young Hoover, pursuing US labour strategy of the era, hired cheap immigrant labour in Kalgoorlie for his UK company, eventually causing the rioting.

    He then went on to work for the same company in China.

  8. Professor Fred Lenin

    Politicians always mess with the economy it is their source of income and fyturse super payout and pension for life .
    If the economy falters it threatens their financial present and future.

  9. Dot

    Amazing that FDR attacked Hoover from the right.

  10. Turtle

    There was an article in the Oz yesterday that tried the old FDR myths. I set em straight in the comments. If they printed it.

  11. C.L.

    Roosevelt the Depression slayer – the zombie bullshit story that never dies.

  12. stackja

    US 1937-1938 Depression was FDRs

  13. Mother Lode

    Gawd, I remember being at school and hearing the hoary of myths about FDR’s saving the USA.

    Australia’s depression having been a quicker and less destructive affair seemed to make no impression on the teachers.

    Mind you they would also explain Germany’s emergence from its own malaise as being due to Hitler’s massive government spending.

    I seem to remember a quote of Churchill’s along the lines that no man had ever had to labour so hard to woo a mistress as he had Roosevelt.

  14. Mother Lode

    Roosevelt the Depression slayer – the zombie bullshit story that never dies.

    Many of the people who repeat it do so because they believe the accompanying tenet that high levels of government planning and spending work – a commonplace idea at present unfortunately.

    They believe the former because of the latter, and the latter because of the former.

    And above both they believe themselves informed and intelligent for believing the both.

  15. Roger

    And so the academic got an intoxicating sniff of power and influence.

    Not just the academic, but the intellectual.

  16. HGS

    “Amazing that FDR attacked Hoover from the right.”

    FDR was notorious for talking with forked tong well before even running for president.
    K Rudd was also going to be very reasonable if we elected him. At least, that is what he told us.

  17. old bloke

    #3675393, posted on November 30, 2020 at 8:40 am

    IIRC a young Hoover, pursuing US labour strategy of the era, hired cheap immigrant labour in Kalgoorlie for his UK company, eventually causing the rioting.

    He was also in Cue where he stayed at Murchison Chambers which still stands. There were gold mining activities in nearby Day Dawn, W.A.

  18. Bruce of Newcastle

    1917 was a great reset.
    Didn’t work out well.
    Just saying.

  19. James Murphy

    “The crowning folly of the Hoover administration was the SmootHawley Tariff…”

    The following presidents signed tariffs into law.

    George Washington
    Thomas Jefferson
    James Madison Tariff of 1816
    James Monroe Tariff of 1824
    John Quincy Adams Tariff of 1828 (largest tariff in our history)
    John Tyler Tariff of 1842
    James Buchanan Tariff of 1861
    Abraham Lincoln Tariff of 1864
    William McKinley Tariff of 1897
    William Howard Taft the Payne-Aldrich Tariff of 1909
    Warren G. Harding the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922
    Herbert Hoover Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930

    Only one of 12 saw a decline in the economy after increasing tariffs all the others saw an improving economy. In other words 92 percent of the time when tariffs are increased the economy improves.

    Smoot-Hawley was passed IN RESPONSE TO THE GREAT DEPRESSION it did not trigger the Great Depression.

    Smoot-Hawley was only a small change over existing tariffs. The Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 had set tariffs at 40 percent and Smoot-Hawley raised them to 46 percent which was in line with tariffs for the previous hundred years.

    After World War I the USA went into a steep depression. Congress responded with the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 raising tariffs. The resulting economic prosperity is generally referred to as the “Roaring Twenties.”

    In “The Myth of Free Trade the Pooring of America” Dr. Ravi Batra summed up the real world experience of tariffs in the range of 40-50 percent after the Civil War this way.

    “Between 1869 and 1899, import volume of international trade fell far short of the growth in economic activity. Foreign competition became insignificant to most U.S. manufactures. Here, then, was the classic profile of an inward-looking economic system—one for which the advocates of free trade reserve their direst predictions. Here is a society which, according to their doctrine, would fritter away its precious resource; a society where the absence of foreign rivalry would lead to choking prices and shoddy products; where producers would have no incentive to innovate and improve; in short, a society that would gradually slide into mediocrity and even poverty”

    “What actually happened over these years is only too well known. The gross national product of the United States quadrupled between 1869 and 1900 when measured in constant (1929) dollars. In spite of a mushrooming population, real wages jumped 50 percent, retail prices tumbled 37 percent, and annual per capita income rose from $223 in 1869 to almost $500 in 1900.”

  20. Tel

    Amazing that FDR attacked Hoover from the right.

    Amazing that he not only got away with it, but then successfully turned on a dime and did the opposite of what he promised … and the managed to edit history in order to blame the free market after the fact!

    It’s almost as bad as what Conservatives do to blame Libertarians.

Comments are closed.