Talk:New Deal

Template:FAOL

BIAS IN THIS ARTICLE IS EXTREMELY DESTRUCTIVE RIGHT NOW

Someone more versed in using Wikipedia needs to take it upon her/himself to get this article in shape and protected. The Republicans in the U.S. are licking their wounds after Obama's amazing landslide victory (and the general "fuck you" the American populace has given to Bush and his cronies) by trying to handicap the new Administration before they even get to work. Paramount to this effort is to re-write the history of the New Deal. Limbaugh and others are already referring to the financial situation in the U.S. as the "Obama Depression," and they've convinced the Ditto Heads among us that the concensus of historians is that the New Deal "prolonged the Great Depression." That is by no means the case. Most historians agree that it was a mixed bag, and that our leaders did what they thought was right at the time.

In the section of this article labeled "Prolonged/worsened the Depression," a good example of this rhetoric can be found. The survey cited in this section (citation 45 at the bottom) is actually of questionable rigor. The author himself states that he has no way of knowing whether he used a representative sample, and that's the whole point of doing such research! If someone is going to try and provide information in this Wiki article about what "most historians think" about the New Deal (and I think many will come away with that impression), he/she should at least try and find an article whose authors can provide us with some assurance that their data represent what "most historians think" about the New Deal. Doesn't that make sense?

At any rate, I'm sure millions of people around the world will be turning to Wikipedia to do their quick search refresher on the New Deal, and I'd hate to see it used to further spread propaganda. 67.164.84.120

Anon seems to complain when scholars and experts have conclusions based on thorough research. That's what we report at Wiki. Bernanke of cousre is a leading expert on the topic, unlike Rush Limbaugh (what's he doing here, or Obama???) It makes sense for Anon to read the studies that are listed in the bibliography, which cover all major points of view on the topic, before talking about "propaganda". Rjensen (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I am but a humble anon myself, and judging by Rjensen's credentials I may not be in the position to disagree, but I do think there are some POV issues in this article. The article does seem largely critical of FDR and the New Deal. There are numerous areas where this is an issue, but I think the most obvious one is the Conflicting Interpretations section. The section states that a minority (a large minority) feels the New Deal did not end the Depression and yet there are a sparse (on the verge of non-existent) rebuttals to that perspective. At the very least it would make sense to change that section to "Alternate Interpretations" or "Criticisms of the New Deal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.128.73 (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the section citing the survey screwed up the results. Leaving aside methodological concerns, there were three categories in the survey: Agree, Disagree with provisos, and Disagree. When you add up the two "disagree" categories, you get 95% of historians and 73% of historians reporting that the New Deal did not prolong the Depression. (The original writer seemed to add "agree" and "disagree with provisos" together, which is untenable.) So I've changed the weasel words in the opening section about there being a substantial debate (at least among historians, there isn't), and fixed the discussion in the prolonged/worsened the depression section to reflect accurate numbers.

07:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creed of hubris (talk • contribs)

Actually, you seem to have misread the survey, the option you are referring to is not "disagree with provisos", but "agree with provisos", as such the previous situation was more accurate than the current. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.192.7.180 (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Contradictions on sharecroppers

This article can't seem to decide whether the New Deal helped or hurt southern sharecroppers and tenant farmers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephemerama (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It did both. It stalled eventual mechanization, but unintentionally accelerated the death of the labor system by drastically cutting production. 35.10.45.21 (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Yaron Harnell

One perspective holds that a very major way the New Deal hurt black sharecroppers was a program to create scarcity and thus raise prices by destroying food and paying farm owners to NOT grow food (recall the stories of mountains of produce left to rot under armed guard). This profited the land owner well, but was a disaster for sharecroppers who could neither grow food, nor share in the government pay to keep their landlord's land fallow. I'll see if I can find credible sources for this perspective. 24.21.105.223 (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Socialist/Communist Edit

The New Deal reflected many of the popular viewpoints of socialist groups in the 1930s. Socialist groups had heavy ties to the labor unions in the U.S, and these groups were strengthened greatly by the NIRA which was formed by the New Deal. The New Deal also enforced an Eight Hour Workday (check the article). This was a popular idea in the labor movement, as well as with Socialists in America. Overall, the New Deal appears to have given Socialists much of what they demanded in the United States. Litanss (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Socialism involves state control of the means of production, and the New Deal Democrats usually (though not always) preferred regulation to nationalization. Not the same thing. 76.106.145.195 (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. There are (and were) so many factions of (and within) socialism, that one cannot state with finality that Socialism stood for any single production principle. Although generally anti-free market, most mainstream American socialists were loathe to do away with free market capitalism altogether. Fascist socialism under Mussolini favored nationalization while German socialism under Hitler favored coercing industry into the nationalistic effort, but leaving them for the most part privately owned though heavily regulated. 24.21.105.223 (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality - Article should be less ASSERTIVE

There are several assertive statements in this article that are debated topics! To improve the quality of this article, these assertions should be modified so to not violate conflicting viewpoints of others... Please point out any examples of such within this section. Litanss (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Although the New Deal greatly improved the economy, it did not end the Great Depression. The coming of the Second World War ended the depression by creating demand for more products.
- Many would disagree that WW2 directly caused the end of the depression; this is asserted strongly here.
The most important program of 1935, and perhaps the New Deal as a whole, was the Social Security Act
- The importance of the Social Security program is subjective - there are so many other programs being introduced at this time, so many would argue others are more important.
Thus, it did not transform American capitalism in any genuinely radical way.
-This is controversial; many would argue New Deal caused dramatic changes in the United States. The Wagner Act is one example, as U.S. business has been effected greatly by the strengthening of labor unions.
Virtually all historians believe that the New Deal helped resolve the Great Depression
- This is asserting the beliefs of a certain group (historians in general), and should be modified for quality's sake
Litanss (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the assertion that WWII, not the New Deal, ended the depression: I've heard it said that Historians will tell you that the New Deal ended the depression. Economists will tell you that WWII ended the depression. The later seems to make more sense to me. Many believe the New Deal actually made the depression worse. All of these perspectives can be included in the article, with the sources that posit them. It's not an "either - or" proposition. 24.21.105.223 (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Entirely bias "interpretation" of the New Deal, as opposed to straight history.=

This is an unbelievably biased article about the New Deal. By what fair academic standard could we justify applying an epithet ("Broker State") that is by no means a mainstream description, throughout the article? This article reflects the opinions of libertarian and so-called "Free Market" thinkers, not the mainstream accepted understanding.Ramsincanon (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why not read up on the subject and rewrite the article. This is a free encyclopedia, if you see something wrong, change it.... 193.130.82.253 (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see what you are talking about...141.155.26.144 (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a citation for the assertion that there is debate about whether the New Deal made the depression worse. That strikes me as partisan revisionism.

forgive my complete lack of wikipedia technical skills... this article reads like an opinion paper a high-schooler would have written. encyclopedias should present facts, not opinions of conclusions, regardless of whether or not they are "mainstream" opinions . example: "In high school we were taught that Roosevelt came in as this great savior, put in "THE NEW DEAL" and America fought its way out of the morass." i am no expert but this is not the kind of writing i expect to see in an encyclopedia. i came across this page looking for facts, not opinions. i can't judge the validity of this article because i don't know the facts (hence my attempt research them) and it may be a great article but it should not be on wikipedia. at the very least this article needs a "disputed neutrality" header. - james jones, 06 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.43.8 (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I added cites -- Parker and Best--regarding the debate on New Deal's effectiveness.Rjensen (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:New Deal

A new template has been created to help organise all of the various articles relating to the New Deal. Please come and help improve/expand if you can. Thanks. LordHarris 11:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a great template. Good work! Just make sure it doesn't autohide when viewed in the articles. -- penubag  (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Misleading graphs

The two graphs in this article are currently misleading. They purport to show a trend, but their origins are not at 0, which sensationalizes / exaggerates the trends being shown. Tempshill (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

no they show the fine detail that will be mostly lost if the origin is set at zero. "sensationalizes" is a false statement. Rjensen (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with Temp. He makes good points at the Pump-policy page, but I'm not sure he is absolutely right on this. Assuming good faith, I don't see that the creator of the graph meant to deceive us. One interesting proposal is that the variance on the chart be no more than the variance in the numbers (e.g., 5% variance in the statistic represents a 5% change in the graph), and I think this can be done without having zero as a Y intercept. I think that much good could come from this discussion. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be misleading because the U.S. population was going up at the same time. Even if the unemployment rate stayed stable the actual number of people unemployed would rise. A graph of unemployment rates might be clearer and allow for a zero origin if in fact that's important.--76.103.128.198 (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

it's a graph of actual employment which is important in its own right. It does not attempt to show unemployment. (There are many causes of unemployment (for example, population growth, people dropping out of school, or people without work moving from farms (where they are not considered unemployed) to town (where they are counted as unemployed. Rjensen (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Plagerism

I suspected that there was significant plagerism at this article evidenced by the tone and lack of context between some sections. In trying to find notability for the term "Broker state" sufficient to support major section on the topic, I ran across: [[1]] where the entire section was plagerized to our article. This is bad form and lazy. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Almost as lazy as misspelling plagiarism.

actually the Historymania source copied Wikipedia and admits it in the last line of the article. Our coverage here is not copied (but is based on Leuchtenburg and Kennedy books). Rjensen (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

When "New Deal" term goes out of fashion?

Does anyone know when "New Deal" went out of use/fashion? Was the term still in active use towards the end of WWII? DEddy (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In December, 1943, FDR told the press that "Dr. New Deal" had given way to "Dr. Win the War" according to Robert Sickels, The 1940s (2004) p,7 onlineRjensen (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on corruption in the New Deal

I forgot his name but he and his work should be mentioned here.PonileExpress (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Completely false statement

"There is a broad consensus among historians that the New Deal policies aided in this recovery; in a recent survey, 95% of historians supported this idea, while 73% of economists agreed."

.

I deleted this line, because it wasn't supported by the reference. The only statistic close to the claim is from this question:

 A P D 39. Taken as a whole, government policies of

E 27 22 51 the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen H 6 21 74 the Great Depression. Pr 97/95

? 89/87 - percent of economists replying, followed by the percent of historians replying

Only 51% of economists disagree (who answered), and only 74% of historians (who answered) in this survey disagree. There's no support for the above claim.

Good point, needs rephrasing. Try: "There is a broad consensus among scholars that the New Deal policies did not lengthen and deepen the Depression; only 5% of professional historians and 27% of professional economists believe it served to lengthen and deepen the Great depression." Rjensen (talk) 08:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a direct quote from the survey: "Based on the survey, I concluded that the profession has not reached a consensus about the causes of the Great Depression, nor about the impact of the New Deal on economic growth."

This survey is also nearly 15 years old, and doesn't account for new research. It is also a survey of only teachers, and thus was a questionable sample to begin with. If this is going to be used at all it should say that according to this survey only 27% of historians agree or partially agree that the New Deal prolonged the depression, and only 49% of economists agree or partially agree that the New Deal prolonged the depression. Of course, then it would have to admit that this survey is nearly 15 years old, was only a survey of teachers, and that the person conducting the survey concluded there was no consensus about the impact of the New Deal on economic growth.

is "Puerto Rico" right during "The First Hundred Days" section?

i wonder that.--Ilovesabbath (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)