Home » Audio, Media, Video \ Tags: Depression Myths, FDR, Great Depression, Keynesianism, Monetary Policy, Regulation

FDR’s Depression Policies: Good Deal or Raw Deal?

On July 9, 2010 at the FreedomFest Conference in Las Vegas (www.freedomfest.com), FEE president Lawrence W. Reed debated University of Nevada-Las Vegas economist Bernard Malamud on the subject of the New Deal policies of Franklin Roosevelt. This is a video recording of that 50-minute debate.

15 Comments »

Unbelievable! The good Doctor Reed strikes again! He will be on “The Liberty Solution” on PFP Movement Radio August 11th, 2010. Google PFP Movement Radio, we have hosts broadcasting everyday of the week!

To Freedom!

//Michael Shanklin
30 July 2010 at 10:41 am

[...] its political subsidiaries have harvested since the ink dried on the ratified Constitution. I saw Larry Reed from the FEE absolutely dismember a Keynesian apologist in a debate on RedDR’s economic policies [...]

//Hezekiah Wyman » Blog Archive » Feeding the Beast: Taxation is Slavery by Bill Buppert
30 July 2010 at 12:51 pm

Weak. Mr. Malamud is a poor speaker and he sound out of his element in this era. His speech was not aimed at the problems of the Roosevelt administration. It was rambling about the transition and some minor elements of the tactics of battling the downturn . His debating style needs some work at Toastmasters.

I have heard Mr Reed’s exact speech in a number of other lectures, and there are no new arguments here. His statements are good, but this panel is not a debate, it is just talking points that he states over and over again.

I wish he debate someone who have really studied the 30′s depression like Ben Bernanke. I feel is bipolar debate would really allow us to understand this period.

Skip this and listen/watch something else on the FEE site.

//Steven Rubendall
31 July 2010 at 12:29 am

It sickens me that a Professor of Economics considers this current round of stimulus productive. Consider the following facts:
1) The government reports that 755,454 jobs have been saved or created by the stimulus so far.
2) The government reports that $267,664,272,068 have been paid out so far.
(sources are both from recovery.gov)
If these figures are accurate, each job saved or created cost tax payers $354,309.16. And yet, when referring to the stimulus, Professor Malamud claims that, “it creates work, it creates jobs, it creates productive contribution to well being.” I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t know too many people who are worthy of such salaries. As an employee of the government, I suppose Professor Malamud is accustomed with this level of gross inefficiency. However, I hope he pardons me when I suggest that my money is better spent on my family’s well-being than on the Harry Reid Environmental Research Center.

//Aron Boyette
3 August 2010 at 2:23 pm

Professor Malamud appears to say just as the recording cuts off “I’ve never heard the arguments I heard…” I can only guess that he was completely unfamiliarly with the arguments contained in Larry Reed’s criticism of the New Deal. Too many mainstream academic and government economists are completely ignorant of the Austrian school. Perhaps there’s a reason. Government employs most economists and arguing for limited government can’t be good for their careers.

Professor Malamud, in his praise of government stimulus, appears to be unaware of opportunity costs. The dollars spent on that Harry Reid Center could have been spent somewhere else, perhaps on a project that actually creates productive jobs rather than some boondoggle.

//Tim Kelly
3 August 2010 at 7:45 pm

How can Malamud call what FDR did ‘playing games’ with the price of gold, in any sense of honesty? He mandated the confiscation of private gold, then promptly revalued the metal from somewhere near $20 to $35 per oz, robbing those law abiding citizens who turned in their gold of 40% of their purchasing power.

I am saddened that he also tried weakly to preempt discussion of the slaughter of pigs under price control efforts by the FDR administration. This is precisely the kind of thing that should be examined, and closely, if people are to really understand the effects of government policy on the economic exchanges of the individuals making up society.

//Matt Novak
4 August 2010 at 11:37 pm

Not only were FDR’s policies stupid, they were criminal. But were are suppose to laugh it off. Gold was the the property individuals and he simply confiscated it. The problem with people like Prof Malamud is they impart to government officials a special status that allows them to engage what for you or I would be criminal activity. Rothbard was right. Governemnt is nothing but a gang of thieves writ large.

//Tim Kelly
9 August 2010 at 10:20 am

In boxing parlance this so-called debate would have been described as a “mis-match”. I found Professor Malamud’s rebuttal embarassing, especially the last minute or so. I got the impression that he was saying the words but, in reality, no longer believed them. Good thing they were friends or Reed would have left him in shreds.

//Chris Clancy
10 August 2010 at 5:11 am

FDR was a criminal and he violated our Founding Father’s small limited constitutional government. He recognized Communist Dictator Joesph Stalin saying some of his best friends were communists as he was a Fabian Socialist. LBJ was another Fabian Socialist and criminal

//Peter F. Steele
12 August 2010 at 2:19 pm

I just cannot explain how the facts can be layed out so clearly to the lefty and yet he will not give in. I suppose after so many years of learning the wrong economics and making friends with the same people in his little world, he just couldn’t bare the thought of accepting he has been living a huge lie. NEVER UNDER ESTIMATE THE POWER OF DENIAL!!!!!

//ivan
10 September 2010 at 1:08 am

[...] schemes cooked up by the Federal government to take care of a non-problem since the heyday of RedDR’s bold socialist programs in the [...]

//Hezekiah Wyman » Blog Archive » TSA Joins the Porn Industry by Bill Buppert
11 November 2010 at 3:21 pm

Mr. Malamud’s rambling is stunningly removed from any understanding of the nature of money (other than his apparent conception that it is simply printed and distributed and redistributed by governmental fiat). I am surprised that Mr. Reed doesn’t attack this dangerous concept of money and its logical consequences.

//John
13 November 2010 at 10:19 pm

[...] economists have come to; nothing more than court apologists for what can only be termed bad alchemy heavily laden with the polar opposite of any critical thinking whatsoever. This is also a result [...]

//Zero Gov » Blog Archive » If Government is the Answer, You Must Have Asked the Wrong Question by Bill Buppert
7 January 2011 at 2:10 pm

//Militant Libertarian » If Government is the Answer, You Must Have Asked the Wrong Question
9 January 2011 at 9:52 pm

//FreeWestRadio.com » Blog Archive » If Government is the Answer, You Must Have Asked the Wrong Question
10 January 2011 at 11:02 am