Comments on: Dear Lord, Anyone but Lawrence Summers . . .

By: The Case Against Larry Summers | The Big Picture

The Case Against Larry Summers | The Big Picture — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:40:16 +0000

[...] Dear Lord, Anyone but Lawrence Summers . . . (July 8th, 2009) [...]

By: Hot Links: « The Reformed Broker

Hot Links: « The Reformed Broker — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:05:30 +0000

[...] Let’s just say that Barry Ritholtz isn’t the biggest Larry Summers fan in the world. (TBP) [...]

By: Your Breakfast Read, Served By The Confluence « The Confluence

Your Breakfast Read, Served By The Confluence « The Confluence — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:07:56 +0000

[...] as Fed Chairman? Barry Ritholtz says “Fuck Hell no!” and makes some Mt Vesuvius-size threats. Please don’t [...]

By: Winston Munn

Winston Munn — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:25:17 +0000

I am in favor of keeping Bernanke in the Chair at the Fed as long as we still have an extradition treaty with the Fed and don’t have to hunt him down someplace else.

By: Transor Z

Transor Z — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:11:24 +0000

Two names to know in connection with FDR

Louis Howe:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/howe-louis.htm

Jim Farley:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/farley-james.htm

By: franklin411

franklin411 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:08:32 +0000

@Mike at 8:18
Yes, what the Senate progressives wanted was a complete nationalization. This had been discussed in American politics for 50 years in the Populist movement and its various successors. Farmers were essentially suffocated by a usurious system where their only access to credit was often through local banks and merchants. However, as the passage notes, FDR’s banking reforms were written in part by the banks themselves. Also, the Coming of the New Deal and the Politics of Upheaval (the next book in the series) make clear that attempts to paint FDR as ‘radical’ were a dismal failure, as they likely will be with President Obama.

@Mark
Hoover’s rep has gotten a lot of unwarranted spit and polish over the last 30 years (it started just about when the Reagan Revolution began). The fact is that Hoover didn’t intervene on behalf of the people until he had no choice. America was in the midst of a severe drought in 1930/1, and people were (in the words of Senator Borah) “literally starving.” Congress passed a bill to provide relief to these people through a grant to the Red Cross, and Hoover vetoed it on the grounds that the government should not be involved in any way in providing relief to individuals (even indirectly).

Even in mid-1932, Hoover believed he would easily defeat FDR, who he saw as a “lightweight.” After the Democratic convention, however, it became clear that FDR was a dynamo and Hoover was truly despised. Suddenly, Hoover found the ideological justification he lacked in 1931 to sign a major relief bill in July 1932 providing relief to individuals. I’m sure it had nothing to do with the fact that Americans were burning the President in effigy, right?

By: Mark Wolfinger

Mark Wolfinger — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:41:10 +0000

You know dubya’s not eligible

By: Mark E Hoffer

Mark E Hoffer — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:33:46 +0000

F411,

after a Glimmer of Hope–foolish me. Good Luck w/ that.

Please, don’t harsh your buzz, forget that Hoover *Started* the Trend of “New Deal”-style Government Intervention.

And, yes, I know Schlesinger was the Apologist-in-Chief on FDR’s pompom squad..

By: franklin411

franklin411 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:04:26 +0000

@Mark
Nah. Schlesinger was a HUGE Roosevelt fan and he essentially sees FDR as the only thing that saved America from a fascist or communist revolution in early 1933. FDR’s strength was that he was a pragmatist–he knew that we couldn’t allow ourselves to be paralyzed by inaction, whether that inaction was due to an ideological disinclination to do more (Hoover) or the desire to achieve perfect solutions every time (the extremists). President Obama has learned his history well, and I quite agree with him that what this country needed in 1933, and what it needs today, is action.

By: call me ahab

call me ahab — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:37:59 +0000

“At any rate, Larry would never make it through Congress after what he said about women being bad at math.”

wow- sounds like quite the deal breaker- forget where he stands on policy- and to set the record straight-

he implied that innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers-

“Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, walked out on Summers’ talk, saying later that if she hadn’t left, ”I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.”

wow- I am surprised she didn’t faint as well