Talk:New Deal/Archive 03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Continuing POV

This remains by far the worst article I've encountered on Wikipedia as far as neutrality is concerned. Has this article been raised as a candidate for arbitration or even locking (pending a heck of a rewrite)?Ucbuffalo81 03:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, not sorted well, fragments everywhere, I understand so little of it.. - Jonno

Pre-introduction

Why is the italicized header so long and descriptive? ~[User:Mylakovich]

Ambiguous language

The second new deal "introduced class conflict?" So class conflict had not existed before its passage? Z-minder 00:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i'm not sure if this really fits in the catagory of ambiguous language, but in the sub section relief recovery and reform, the article states that <It included the National Recovery Administration, which in 1935 ended regulation of Wall Street> this seams wrong to me because the whole point of the new deal was to add reglementation to the US economy, could some one please adress this. Aturcato 03:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Separate Section on Criticism/Minority Views of New Deal?

an outsider to this debate, i came to this article looking for information on the New Deal, not on modern criticism. normally, wikipedia has separate articles for criticism of political figures or programs. that would clearly be appropriate here, particularly given the inherently esoteric and complex economic focus of the critics, which are themselves controversial (e.g., ayn rand).ctj 17:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to second User:ctj's comments Delad 00:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

a small request

Going through this article, there seem to be a lot of acronyms that are never spelled out. If anyone knows what they mean, would you mind clarifying this? CWA= Civil Works administration FHA= Federal housing administration WPA= Works Progress Administration USHA= U.S. Housing Authority CCC= Civilian Conservation Corps FERA= Federal emergency relief act AAA= Agricultural Adjustment Act TVA= Tennessee Valley Authority HOLC= Home Owners' Refinancing Act NRA= National recovery Administration PWA= Public Works Administration Stormn89 Sir Shrubberry Dec. 27 05

Off topic from this but Rich and poor does not seem to be right please help im not sure

Hanging sentence driving me crazy

I cannot imagine the intended meaning of this line: "In practice the day of the bank run was virtually ended by the FDIC."

  • I replaced it with "The establishment of the FDIC virtually ended the era of "runs" on banks." Does that make sense to you?--orlady 03:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Milton Friedman praised new deal?

Milton Friedman's Wiki page quotes him as saying in 2006: "You know, it's a mystery as to why people think Roosevelt's policies pulled us out of the Depression". This would seem to refute support from Milton Friedman. It might be appropriate to state that he earlier supported the new deal but later recanted, but the current text is simply wrong.

Friedman said the relief programs were "appropriate" and noted he and his wife were employed by them years and they were a lifesaver for them. By 1940 he was a top advisor to the New Deal on economic policy--he says he was a Keynesian then. His later criticisms centered on NRA (which was dead by the time he became a New Dealer in 1935) and farm programs. He often took credit for raising taxes in ww2 via payroll deduction system. Rjensen 05:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If you check this interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/int_miltonfriedman.html#7

you will see that he equivocates about his support -- suggesting that his support was more to do with his own personal circumstances.

It may be his memory was weak at age 93, but he did say: "You have to distinguish between two classes of New Deal policies. One class of New Deal policies was reform: wage and price control, the Blue Eagle, the national industrial recovery movement. I did not support those. The other part of the new deal policy was relief and recovery... providing relief for the unemployed, providing jobs for the unemployed, and motivating the economy to expand... an expansive monetary policy. Those parts of the New Deal I did support. INTERVIEWER: But why did you support those? MILTON FRIEDMAN: Because it was a very exceptional circumstance. We'd gotten into an extraordinarily difficult situation, unprecedented in the nation's history. You had millions of people out of work. Something had to be done; it was intolerable. And it was a case in which, unlike most cases, the short run deserved to dominate." As a professor and senior Treasury advisor in his early 30s, he was not

a naive kid. Rjensen 05:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Random words

So as I was reading this article on the New Deal, I noticed an amount of random words and marks. In the first paragraph alone, there is a series of exclamation marks after some words and at the end of that paragraph, there is a series of exclamation marks and words that seem to have no bearing whatsoever on this article. Reading through more, there are more cases like that. When I tried to edit the page to remove it, I could find it nowhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.169.217.22 (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Same here, its really ticking me off...

black thursday

the article cites that "black tuesday" was the day of the crash in the stock market, although this day. the 29th of October 1929 is black thursday, as is correct in other great depression articles Layla.meh 04:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Layla.meh


As a matter of fact, the correct term is, BLACK TUESDAY; not thursday. Quote from the History Twelve Student Workbook {Third Edition,} by Jerry Falk, published by Hazelmere Publishing: "Anyone with spare capital now became involved in the stock market. This led to overspecualtion which would be a major factor in the cause of Black Tuesday, the 29th of October, 1929, the day the New York stock market crashed."

-Carly S


You both make valid points. "Black Thursday" refers to October 24th, 1929 when the recorded sales of shares reached nearly 13,000,000--only to have the market revive briefly on the 25th. "Black Tuesday" refers to October 29th, 1929--the day associated with the "crash"--when recorded sales of shares were above 16,000,000 and industrial stocks dropped nearly forty points--the worst drop in US history to that date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjlydie (talk • contribs) 02:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

dangerous sources: Siegan was judicial activist

Conservative Judge Robert H. Bork cautioned in a 1985 speech that Professor Siegan's economic ideas could engender "a massive shift away from democracy and toward judicial rule." Siegan, who died recently, was a lawyer not an economist. His book on 1930s appeared in 1980 and was not conversant with economic history. See his obit at [1] Rjensen 17:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

POV concerns over chart at top of article

I place a POV banner above the chart at the top of the article. First I think it goes into original research territory for one of us to draw our own trendline on a chart. Second, it's POV because that is only one part of the picture. There is more to an economy than GDP. There should also be a chart unemployment picture. Instantiayion 03:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Rjensen has now added a manufacturing employment chart. It's POV to only select one sector of employment. To be NPOV it needs to be an overall unemployment chart. Instantiayion 03:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition Rjensen is making charts that stop at 1940, which prevent us from seeing the recovery. We need to see context for these to be NPOV. Instantiayion 03:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If Instantiayion has some more informative data he's keeping it secret. That secrecy violated Wiki rules--he must tell us his reliable sources or not use them. Rjensen 03:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who isn't sure of what I'm talking about, read "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrel Huff. Instantiayion 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

balancing POV

This is a historical article and does not deal with current events--everyone is dead. The historiography is very large, with thousands of books and articles. We cannot allow the piece to become unbalanced--it is one of the most important in Wikipedia and many students rely upon it. If people want to add a comment or criticism or praise from the right (or left) , they must balance it with evidence from the other side, or the article becomes unbalanced and will be deleted. Anyone who is serious about the topic will be able to do this. Rjensen 15:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Straight out facts are not criticisms. You just can't handle the facts so you're deleting. This article does need more criticisms though. It is written in a way that praises the New Deal and the sources are biased in favor of it. You deleting sourced information as you are doing is making it even more biased in favor of the New Deal. Regulations 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
And the gall you have to to delete the fact that Milton Friedman opposed the New Deal while leaving in that he supported parts of the New Deal when his thinking was not as sophisticated yet. Regulations 15:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Relax, I can handle all the facts. I am not biased in favor of the New Deal. The debate here is about numbers that every economist agrees on (and where there is disagreement, as in unemployment, two sets are given) The deletion was a Friedman quote out of place (the article was talking about relief and it quoted Friedman on relief policies.) Let's keep the NPOV goal in mind please. If there is a sentence that is inappropriate, please identify it. Rjensen 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Rjensen! I have been watching an edit war/flame war/troll war on another page, and I thank you very much for working to maintain the civility and dignity of Wikipedia discourse. --SECurtisTX | talk 15:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

not wat i wanted

I made some edits, Three critical comments were found in the first graphs. I removed "some say the second new deal reintroduced class conflict, especially between business and unions, which has existed. Opponents of the New Deal, complaining of the cost and increase in federal power, stopped its expansion by 1937, and abolished many of its programs by 1943. The Supreme Court ruled several programs unconstitutional (some parts of them were soon replaced, except for the NRA). "

I removed this quote to the latter part, I think, under Communism. Criticism belongs lower down, not in the introduction 67.101.45.86 04:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC).Hank Chapot

There isn't any Wikipedia policy or guideline agreeing with that last statement of yours, and I certainly don't agree with it. To give an extreme example, the various pseudoscience articles certainly should have criticism prominently featured in the intro. Tempshill 21:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

3 graphs removed

I removed three graphs (and neutrality-tagged their image pages) illustrating year-by-year data because they were misleading; their origins were not at zero, so volatility was illustrated as being higher than it actually was. I notified the author and would love to have the graphs back if they can be corrected. The fourth graph's origin is at zero and is great. Tempshill 21:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The graphs are restored because they are full of highly detailed correct information that no one disputes. The issue of "volatility" is not raised in the article (nor is it a major issue in the expert literature) and is not relevant --what is relevant are the levels of economic activity, such as employment, shown by the graphs. User:Tempshill suggests that BETTER graphs may someday be drawn. Indeed, yes, and until then we go with GOOD graphs that are essential to understanding economic conditions that were the focus of New Deal activities. Erasing information is bad business--espcially when not a single reader has complained about being "misled" Rjensen 23:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

terms

whoever made this article clearly doesn't know that communism is the extreme left wing whilst fascism is the extreme right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.145.173 (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving and neutrality

I've just archived some of the old discussion. Also, I wonder is there any POV dispute still? If not, I will remove the tags soon. This is a highly comprehensive article, with a wealth of excellent material from numerous contributors. What it needs is some presentation improvements, like standardising picture and graph placements and sizes, i.e. these should ideally go at the top of sections, and be left to "thumb" sizes rather than 300px etc, unless its a comic which needs to be an appropriate size to read. It's also an article that will attract a lot of interest, with a corresponding amount of waffly comment. But it could be turned in to a featured article with some effort. Wikidea 23:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

=POV Problem is far from gone

I question the notion that there are no POV issues here given that this is a radical revisionist article. This article has been made contradictory by the incessant propagandizing of right wingers who cannot resist rewriting economic history and articles to bend them toward a specific viewpoint. Someone might want to argue the other way and, while I think they're wrong, it illustrates the sheer sloppiness of the article that gives it unwarranted slant. You have someone saying that Keynes theories were not implemented until JFK, then you have Keynes advocates with the FDR administration arguing for more difficit spending. The attempt to paint both Keynes and FDR as big deficit spenders is a goal. Reality is that FDR was elected after criticizing the Hoover deficit and found himself changing to fall more into line with earlier American Progressive programs. He met Keynes and didn't understand him. There's a notion that Keynesianism is some program of specific remedies that are invariably wrong, socialist or vaguely so, central direction or nearly so and undermining of capitalism. Keynes was himself a capitalist, did not approve of Socialism as a remedy and was primarily trying to explain a breakdown in classic liberal economics that contradicted key classical theories. Rather than arguing against classical economics, Keynes saw himself as in effect offering an addendum and if he was far reaching in his economic work, the primary element was his recognition of macroeconomic effects of government policy. He effectively founded Macroeconomics. Keynes was wrong in a number of particulars in his pioneering work, but his concepts are borne out because every American government since FDR, including George W. Bush, Reagan and the rest, have engaged in government attempts to influence the economy. Keynesian is not simply about stimulus or not stimulus. Friedman, who did not see Keynes as some ogre, theorized that government action needed to be automatic rather than judgmental. But no matter how you look at it, Roosevelt did not deal in Keynesian theory (and then not with any intent or real intellectual basis) until the US began its Armaments buildup before the war. With the war, FDR was faced with finding a way to pay for the war and deficits, i.e. government borrowing, was the only answer. As it happens, it was one Keynesian solution. At home in Britain, Keynes, who made fortunes in markets, was the key economist in how Britain could/should pay for the war. Keynes considered at that point that demand was too high and favored higher taxes rather than deficits to reduce demand and control debt. In a word, the POVs here are mostly of ignorance and political cant. I don't see a sign that it's been touched by anyone who's ever serious studied economics or economic history.

The deficit spending was not so much seen as pump priming, although that was hardly new in 1933, and Roosevelt persisted in trying to balance the budget. Arguably the economic was in a loop lock. The country was dying and while it was not billed as such, the New Deal was a great experiment in government and public mechanisms to deal with aberrations in national economies. The vote on Hoover's failed policy by economists and economic historians is largely irrelevant. Perhaps, someone could separate out that the FDR's new deal was both political and economic. That it was bitterly opposed by monied interest including the Liberty Lobby, a front group for wealthy special interests. Someone might try letting non-political economists speak to these questions rather than endlessly parsed attempts to make political points. I'd gladly accept the published work of Bush advisor Gregory Mankiw as responsible commentary. I wouldn't consider Communist or other non-mainstream political movements to have any special credence, ot would I credit POV right wingers. just not a very good piece of work.

There are numerous questionable statements unsupported by either historical record or economic history, theory and reality. People are free to interpret facts, although it should be left to other voices, but it's against the rules to create your facts as you go. 69.120.49.117 05:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have a clue. Could you please edit the article? That sentence about introducing class conflict is bizarre. Like somehow there was no class conflict before the New Deal? That must be some right-wing American dream fantasy (i.e. there is no class conflict because you can just work to be in whatever class you want). --Firefight (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

POV of introduction text

I came here to learn about the New deal, so I won't claim much knowledge of the subject matter. However the introduction seems roughly evenly split between description and criticism, and the impression I got was that the program was generally accepted as bad. Is this actually the case? Based on the talk page and other information it seems like current opinion is divided according to political ideology, and the policies were reasonably but not universally popular at the time. In this case, wouldn't NPOV be one of:

* Introduction purely descriptive (preferred)
* Introduction contains mostly descriptive, small balanced amounts of support and criticism

In particular, the POV language I can see is

* "Dozens of alphabet agencies (so named because of their acronyms, as with the SEC)"
  * Possibly 'Many federal agencies (such as the SEC)'
* First & second New deal should discuss policies rather than who criticised it
* "The Supreme Court of the United States ruled several programs unconstitutional..."
  * Is this covered by the previous (good) sentence about opposition, or can that sentence be re-worded to cover it?
* Possibly 'the promotion of trade union organisations' - 'the influence of...' would read better to me, but I'm not sure if this is accurate.

Am I way off base here? 202.89.151.224 22:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)