Who do you think was the greatest U.S President? (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

Considering support for capitalism was looking pretty weak in the 1930s, regulating the economy didn't kill it, rather restored people's confidence in it.

If you regulate the economy you're restoring faith in socialism, not capitalism.

 

[cowface]

If you regulate the economy you're restoring faith in socialism, not capitalism.

Regulating a capitalist economy is hardly socialism. Socialism is nationalising industry and making it work for the common good. Industry under a regulated capitalist economy is still profit driven.

Regulating capitalism was the only way to save capitalism all together, and (I believe) the only form capitalism will ever exist. Unless you believe we should go back to the 19th century.

 

[withoutaface]

1. If you regulate a free market it ceases to be free, and capitalism implies a free market.
2. Free markets did not cause the great depression, the American Reserve did. FDR then introduced further regulation to compensate for the fuck ups of previous regulatory failures.

 

[ZabZu]

1. If you regulate a free market it ceases to be free, and capitalism implies a free market.

How many western countries in the world have a free market system?

Even the US which has one of the most deregulated economies has a minimum wage. A base wage is state regulation and in neoliberal economics it is considered inefficient since wages are not fully determined by the market.

I feel the market should be the main source of determining prices but in a few areas such as health, education and industrial relations there should be state intervention. Otherwise people will be stuck in a poverty cycle which they cant escape, as many are in the US due to the outrageously expensive health and education systems, and very low minimum wage.

 

[withoutaface]

How many western countries in the world have a free market system?

None.

Even the US which has one of the most deregulated economies has a minimum wage. A base wage is state regulation and in neoliberal economics it is considered inefficient since wages are not fully determined by the market.

Correct, the US runs on a mixed economy.

I feel the market should be the main source of determining prices but in a few areas such as health, education and industrial relations there should be state intervention. Otherwise people will be stuck in a poverty cycle which they cant escape, as many are in the US due to the outrageously expensive health and education systems, and very low minimum wage.

I agree that education up until year 10 should operate under a voucher system, that health care should be provided for free or under a HECS-like system to those who genuinely can't afford it, but I think that tertiary education should have its prices determined by the market because if a degree's worthwhile (i.e. earns a lot of money) then people will be willing to pay for it, whereas if a degree's of purely academic value (i.e. only directly benefits the person studying it) then there's no reason why society should subsidise it, and setting a maximum price for these degrees would just lead to no uni's offering them at all.
Also afaik the US offers a free public education system, how that's outrageously expensive I think I'm going to need you to point out to me.

 

[ZabZu]

Also afaik the US offers a free public education system, how that's outrageously expensive I think I'm going to need you to point out to me.

I meant the cost of tertiary education.

 

[bshoc]

Tax Cuts for the wealthy while the minimum wage doesn't change for 10 years? Budget deficit after budget deficit. Real Wages haven't gone up yet productivity has. Inequality so great it's back to 1920's levels. All of that is 'quiet successful'?

Yes it is all quite succesful, namely because you fail to understand both the concept of real wages and of the minimum wage.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/images/image-060206-02.jpg

Real wages go up along with productivity and fluctuate along economic cycles, one cannot happen without the other if tax levels are maintained at a constant rate, that does not mean whitehouse policy has any direct bearing on real wages, quite the contrary, it is events within the broader economy and the private sector in terms of supply and demand, productivity that have the greatest impact upon real wages, the only real control a government can have over real wages are blunt instruments that ultimately cause more good than harm by setting prices outside what the market can tolerate (wages are just another form of price). So even if real wages fall by 2% (which Bush can impact at best only slightly), you're better off if Bush gave you a 5% tax cut (which Bush can do).

As for the minimum wage, its the biggest load of populist rubbish to have survived to the present day, because it hurts the most the people who it seeks to benefit, namely those being paid the current minimum wage. Labour is nothing more than another price for companies, thus if the price of any input, be it materials or labour rises, companies will factor this rise into their own prices unless their product is totaly inelastic (almost never the case). And they can easily afford to do this (and will) since you've just given those very workers a wage rise.

Thus in the end the best you can hope for from a minimum wage incease is that the rise in wages matches the rise in prices, and thus cancel eachother out. However this in itself pointless exercise has now created a higher rate of inflation, which actually hurts minimum wage workers along with everyone else due to the costs of inflation, especially in terms of loan repayments, price signals, menu costs etc.

The practice of the minimum wage isn't even beneficial to minimum wage earners, even progressive tax makes more sense.

Social policies? What social policies? Banning gay marriage and flag burning?

Sounds good to me, although things like eduaction also warrant a mention.

Only a small part of the population payed 94%. Regulating Wall Street was a good idea. Large Bureaucracies helped stablise the commanding heights of the economy when the country was in depression.

Large Bureaucracies never help, all they did was make the depression go for longer than it should have.

 

[withoutaface]

I meant the cost of tertiary education.

If the extra earning potential is higher than the cost of the education why not take out a loan or have the students sell equity in themselves? Or what about all of the public universities that exist?

 

[cowface]

Sounds good to me, although things like eduaction also warrant a mention.

Banning gay marriage and flag burning but supporting a unregulated free market? Care to explain how that's not hypocritical?

Large Bureaucracies never help, all they did was make the depression go for longer than it should have.

In the same sense, the Department of Education and Training actually encourages people to be less educated and less qualified?

 

[chucknthem]

I think FDR(franklin rosevelt) did pretty well. he brought the US out of the depression with economic reforms and handled world war 2 pretty well.

 

[LewisCox5]

He handled the bay of pigs thing masterfully.

Handled it masterfully? He acted almost completely non-independently and took the advice of his FBI advisors, including Hoover himself, which lead to Kennedy's later complete distrust of Hoover and his institution!
The Bay of Pigs invasion is renowned by many Kennedy historians (including viewpoints from biased Camelot historians such as A. Schlesinger Jnr) to be a complete failure, and it was, unlike his adroit handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis of '62.
In relation to your comment concerning the "German spy", Inga Arvad, initially believed to be a German spy by his father Joe (who strongly advised Kennedy to abandon his relationship with her in a fear that it would harm the Kennedy name) was proved to be quite the contrary, and ended up being what she always said she was, a Danish journalist.

 

[obliviousninja]

Captain America

Sent from my GT-I9506 using Tapatalk

 

[Graney]

Ferris F. Fremont

 

[enoilgam]

FDR was always my favourite.

 

[isildurrrr1]

Teddy Roosevelt.

 

[isildurrrr1]

seriously?

Iranian contras, and nicaraguan land mines?

Essentially ended the fucking cold war. I'd take that any day over the shit he pulled. First I've ever heard of someone saying carter was the best president ever... lol...

You must admit Reagan has a cultish following for good reason and he did play a big role in ending the cold war as well. People say andrew jackson was a great president when he pretty much committed genocide lol.

 

[Graney]

Carter advocated federal decriminalisation of smocking weed, greatest president

 

[enoilgam]

LOL Jimmy Carter I suppose from the perspective of an egyptian he might be but depending on how you rank them he's competing with Nixon for second worst post WW II president. FDR was the best IMHO because of his WW II leadership.

Nixon's legacy has been destroyed by Watergate, but he was actually quite a good President. He performed extremely well in terms of foreign policy (especially with the China visit) and on the domestic front, he has a solid civil rights and economic record. It's an interesting comparison between Nixon and Carter, because they are essentially opposites. Carter was a great humanitarian and is highly regarded for his integrity, but he was quite ineffective as President. In contrast, Nixon's integrity was low, but he was an effective leader and he was successful in advancing his agenda.

In terms of underrated Presidents, Polk is probably one of the best - out of all the Presidents, he was easily the best at setting an agenda and achieving it especially considering that he delivered on all his major election promises.