FDR, Quantitative Easing Wonk, Used Every Tool in His Box to Jumpstart Recovery

Jun 22, 2011Mike Konczal

Rather than focusing on far off threats, FDR chose to combat high unemployment and sluggish growth with everything he had.

Rather than focusing on far off threats, FDR chose to combat high unemployment and sluggish growth with everything he had.

I’ve been reading this important David Beckworth post on the quantitative easing and monetary policy FDR implemented during the Great Depression. Beckworth argues that the first QE policy happened during this time and that it benefited from the fact that Roosevelt explicitly said he would do what it took to get to the pre-trend price-level target. Beckworth links to this Gauti Eggertsson paper that argues that when FDR took office, he signaled that they’d get the price-level back to pre-Depression trend by going off the gold standard, financing a Federal government through deficit spending, and explicitly stating target levels for prices, and this change in expectations from Hoover's administration did a lot of the work of recovery.

I wasn’t sure how serious to take this -- a president talking about price levels with the public? But sure enough, here’s the second Fireside Chat from May 7th 1933 (my bold):

Much has been said of late about Federal finances and inflation, the gold standard, etc. Let me make the facts very simple and my policy very clear. In the first place, Government credit and Government currency are really one and the same thing. Behind Government bonds there is only a promise to pay… [I]n the past the Government has agreed to redeem nearly thirty billions of its debts and its currency in gold, and private corporations in this country have agreed to redeem another sixty or seventy billions of securities and mortgages in gold… [They] knew full well that all of the gold in the United States amounted to only between three and four billions and that all of the gold in all of the world amounted to only about eleven billions.

If the holders of these promises to pay started in to demand gold the first comers would get gold for a few days and they would amount to about one-twenty-fifth of the holders of the securities and the currency… We have decided to treat all twenty-five in the same way in the interest of justice and the exercise of the constitutional powers of this Government. We have placed everyone on the same basis in order that the general good may be preserved.

The Administration has the definite objective of raising commodity prices to such an extent that those who have borrowed money will, on the average, be able to repay that money in the same kind of dollar which they borrowed. We do not seek to let them get such a cheap dollar that they will be able to pay back a great deal less than they borrowed. In other words, we seek to correct a wrong and not to create another wrong in the opposite direction. That is why powers are being given to the Administration to provide, if necessary, for an enlargement of credit, in order to correct the existing wrong. These powers will be used when, as, and if it may be necessary to accomplish the purpose.

I discussed most of the parts of that quote dealing with gold clauses here and here. FDR told rentiers who had put suicide-pact clauses in their contracts, which allowed them to collect more gold than existed in the world so as to allow private parties to profit while the country suffered and was in a deflationary spiral, that he was going to come at them like a spider monkey. Beyond establishing credibility and changing expectations, it makes me happy to see a president so actively go after broken, destructive contractual schemes that prevent the management of bad debts and threaten the general good. But there’s the bold quote, stating what the final goal of monetary policy was at the beginning of his administration.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, and event alerts.

Economic and monetary policy commentators like Ryan Avent have noted that "the Fed chose a direction rather than a destination” when it comes to QE and monetary policy. If Avent wants to see a destination mentioned by a sitting president, he should check out FDR’s fourth fireside chat on October 22, 1933 (my bold):

Finally, I repeat what I have said on many occasions, that ever since last March the definite policy of the Government has been to restore commodity price levels. The object has been the attainment of such a level as will enable agriculture and industry once more to give work to the unemployed. It has been to make possible the payment of public and private debts more nearly at the price level at which they were incurred. It has been gradually to restore a balance in the price structure so that farmers may exchange their products for the products of industry on a fairer exchange basis. It has been and is also the purpose to prevent prices from rising beyond the point necessary to attain these ends. The permanent welfare and security of every class of our people ultimately depends on our attainment of these purposes…

Some people are putting the cart before the horse. They want a permanent revaluation of the dollar first. It is the Government’s policy to restore the price level first. I would not know, and no one else could tell, just what the permanent valuation of the dollar will be. To guess at a permanent gold valuation now would certainly require later changes caused by later facts.

When we have restored the price level, we shall seek to establish and maintain a dollar which will not change its purchasing and debt paying power during the succeeding generation. I said that in my message to the American delegation in London last July. And I say it now once more.

I have two takeaways:

1. Wouldn’t it be funny if in this fireside chat, years into a sub-trend growth and massive waste from high unemployment and unused capacity, Roosevelt said something like, “Someday, 25 years from now, Russia might be able to get a space dog into orbit before us. In order to Win the Future against this space dog, we should immediately forget everything going on right now in order to prepare for research competition with potential adversaries decades from now. We must immediately start planning for this battle right now, lest we lose the future, so let’s give a bunch of tax holidays and easily captured credit benefits to various rocket manufacturers and other incumbents.”? That would be crazy. But that's how the discussion is now framed by the current administration. Instead, FDR was really serious about using every pressure point and every lever to get monetary and fiscal policies going instead.

2. Obviously back then the Democratic coalition had a lot of farmers in it, people for whom “the price level” wasn’t a graph pulled from the St. Louis Fed to put on their blogs but a real thing that they dealt with daily. There is a chance that insomuch as hipsters are an influential Democratic coalition group, and hipsters begin to engage in urban farming, “the price level” might become more of a thing that Democrats are responsive to in order to meet the needs of urban hipster gardeners. Until then, it’s up to economic bloggers to carry this message.

Mike Konczal is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Progressives Can't Afford to Exclude the Working Class

Jun 21, 2011Frank L. Cocozzelli

workers-200Without explaining how the government can create prosperity for all, progressives risk playing into charges of elitism.

workers-200Without explaining how the government can create prosperity for all, progressives risk playing into charges of elitism.

Contemporary liberalism runs the risk of becoming isolated. But this threat does not solely come from the likes of Michele Bachmann or Glenn Beck. It also comes from some self-described liberals whose behavior feeds into the right's caricature of who we are. We risk becoming a group that restricts membership to a certain kind of liberal, one that is educated, not merely nonreligious but anti-religious, and one that is simultaneously smug and self-righteous.

One of the dark risks in an open society is the ascendancy of the enemy/friend dichotomy: one helps only those seen as having similar goals, customs, and beliefs and opposes those who don't. Just observe the poisoning of American political discourse over the past few decades. Discussion and engagement have given way to rants and demonization. In his September 2, 2009 edition of The Daily Howler, Bob Somerby identified a good example of how the right uses this to its advantage -- and how liberals enable its use:

It's simple-minded - but it works. On our side, we stand in line to help. For decades, almost all conservative spin has derived from two simple messages. When you get to work with such clear messaging, being a conservative pundit is the easiest job in the world:

Big government never did anything right. Liberal elites think they're better than you are.

Almost all Republican spin derives from those two messages. The conservative movement has been actively pushing those messages at least since the time of Nixon. No matter what happens in the real world, the conservative pundit simply dreams up a response which derives from one of those notions.

What was Somerby talking about? With regard to the charge of elitism, part of the answer could be found in a Washington Post column by conservative commentator George Will. Writing in April 2008 shortly after then-candidate Obama's comment about working-class voters who “cling” to God and guns, Will noted:

What had been under FDR a celebration of America and the values of its working people has become a doctrine of condescension toward those people and the supposedly coarse and vulgar country that pleases them.

When a supporter told Adlai Stevenson, the losing Democratic presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, that thinking people supported him, Stevenson said, "Yes, but I need to win a majority." When another supporter told Stevenson, "You educated the people through your campaign," Stevenson replied, "But a lot of people flunked the course."

Does President Obama despise working-class folks? Of course not. His economic policies, though far from sufficient from a Keynesian standpoint, are more beneficial to these very folks than anything put forth by today's movement conservatism.

But his comments on guns and faith clearly display something of a disconnect that, three years later, still exists with many of our liberal talkers. Public faces of progressivism Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow, and Bill Maher would rather play in the mud, demonizing the other side, than explain how contemporary liberalism is the best means available to create a prosperous capitalist economy for all, including those in the working-class.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, and event alerts.

Instead of broadening the liberal base, the aforementioned public faces of the left act as though our philosophy were a restricted community. Too many of us howl with delight when Bill Maher derides poor working people as “one-toothers” or those who believe in God as delusional. During any give broadcast of Real Time, the host's constant drumbeat of proclaiming "American dumbness" is ever-present. If anything, he risks turning himself into the poster boy for what movement conservatism says is wrong with liberals. Would FDR, Harry Truman, or Robert F. Kennedy have engaged in such self-defeating, elitist behavior?

What these public figures could be doing instead is rebutting the conservative mantra that Reagan's tax cuts drastically increased revenue (they didn't). Better yet, how about pulling the rug out from under the GOP myth that big government doesn't do anything right? Projects put forth by economic liberals have led to generations of local wealth creation, such as the TVA or the Lower Colorado River Authority. They brought electrical power -- and production -- to whole sections of the South, areas “the invisible hand” of laissez-faire didn't want to touch. More importantly, such a discussion would be a very powerful tool in explaining how an activist government does indeed create private sector jobs.

Maddow and Shultz could take a cue from Thom Hartmann and use their programs to explain how administrations that based their domestic policies upon Keynesian economics were also examples of “big government” getting things very right. (In fairness, Maher does this with Real Time.) For the 30 years after World War II, an activist government ensured increased wealth for a greater number of citizens in a manner far more disciplined than those based upon laissez-faire dogma. Instead, Maddow wasted precious airtime on a June 15 segment with Samuel L. Jackson narrating "Go the F**k to Sleep," a bedtime story for adults.

Such silliness is an ongoing wasted opportunity; it is snarky entertainment that plays to a crowd of cynics instead of engaging those beyond the base. More than that, it is smart alec behavior that can cause some independent folks to feel empathy for liberalism's adversaries.

“When men are once enlisted on opposite sides," Enlightenment thinker David Hume observed, "they contract an affection to the persons with whom they are united, and an animosity against their antagonists: And these passions they often transmit to their posterity." Movement conservatism has taken Hume's observation and honed it into a potent weapon, all while some self-described liberals insist on telling the world how clever they are.

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh can shape the public perception of liberals because we too often choose to disassociate ourselves from blue-collar folks. Whether it be the public or private faces of liberalism, we constantly fail to refute the myth that “government doesn't work.” That, too, illustrates the “liberal elites think they're better than you are” meme Somerby warned us about. The right's talking heads know full well that it is easier to hate a stranger and his ideas than the beliefs of a real-life friend. And to that end, when we segregate ourselves from the very folks contemporary liberalism was intended to help, we make it easier for movement conservatives to beat them down a bit more. It tends to make those who empathize with some, but not all of the of the political right defensive and protective of their own, creating greater identity with "whom they are united." Ranks close and camps become further polarized. Then we all retreat into our restricted communities and the discourse sinks deeper into the mud. And that plays right into the right's hands.

It doesn't have to be this way. One of my favorite photographs is of FDR shaking hands with a soot-covered coal miner during the 1932 Presidential campaign. That photograph of the patrician politician locking grips with a hard-bitten but proud everyday man speaks of common dreams. And it reminds us that contemporary liberalism should never be an exclusive club for the well-educated. As FDR knew, it should be a true pathway to mutual prosperity, one that is equitable and inclusive for all Americans.

Frank L. Cocozzelli writes a weekly column on Roman Catholic neoconservatism at Talk2Action.org and is contributor to Dispatches from the Religious Left: The Future of Faith and Politics in America. A director of the Institute for Progressive Christianity, he is working on a book on American liberalism.

Share This

Subprime on the Subcontinent: The Value of Bold, Persistent Policy Experimentation

Jun 8, 2011Georgia Levenson Keohane

In a three-part series, Roosevelt Institute Fellow Georgia Levenson Keohane explores India's microcredit crisis and what it teaches us about combating poverty. In her final post, Keohane questions the efficacy of microcredit. Does it really transform lives? How do we know?

In a three-part series, Roosevelt Institute Fellow Georgia Levenson Keohane explores India's microcredit crisis and what it teaches us about combating poverty. In her final post, Keohane questions the efficacy of microcredit. Does it really transform lives? How do we know?

Beyond yesterday's question of non-profit versus for-profit, the microcredit crisis in India has emboldened naysayers who question whether either model has proved itself the hoped-for panacea for global poverty. Does microcredit even work, they ask? And how do we know?

This spring, Esther Duflo and Abhijit Banerjee, the highly regarded MIT economists who run the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-Pal), published Poor Economics: a Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty. In it, they draw on their field research: hundreds of randomized control trials designed to examine which policies and practices (and under what conditions) successfully reduce poverty, and which do not. Duflo and Banerjee's empirical approach is widely credited with transforming the field of international development and the economics discipline more broadly. Moreover, their work on microlending finds "clear evidence that microfinance was working." Because Duflo and Banerjee, like other empiricists, also conclude that micro-lending produced little "radical transformation" in the lives of the poor people they studied, many have been quick to pronounce microcredit's failure.

The value of bold, persistent policy experimentation

Duflo and Banerjee insist otherwise. "The main objective of microfinance seemed to have been achieved," they write. "It was not miraculous, but it was working... In our minds microcredit has earned its rightful place as one of the key instruments in the fight against poverty."

The lessons here about what Franklin D. Roosevelt called "bold, persistent experimentation" are crucial for policy makers the world over. First, the absence of panacea does not amount to program failure. Second, the value of the 'controlled experiment' paradigm lies in its parsing power. These kinds of studies -- akin to the randomized contrail trials (RCT) of medical research --  offer a tool to pinpoint which components make a policy effective, which do not, and which can be improved to enhance service delivery and social benefit. Duflo and Banerjee suggest, for example, that most existing microcredit lending structures (for-profit or not for profit) do not permit the poor to borrow and invest sums large or long-term enough for higher risk and return projects that might actually transform their lives. The experiment indicates that creating access to this kind of credit is the next -- and more complex -- frontier in improving capital markets for the poor.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, and event alerts.

A different empirical tact has shown that microcredit works when loans are combined with other products or services, like savings or insurance. In Portfolios of the Poor, researchers Daryl Collins, Jonathan Morduch, Stuart Rutherford, and Orlanda Ruthven examined the financial diaries of the hundreds poor people in India, Bangladesh, and South Africa and determined that credit to build small businesses, though effective, was not enough. Borrowers also benefited from credit for things like doctor's bills, school fees, weddings, and funerals.  Increasingly, microfinance institutions (MFIs) are experimenting with product and service innovations along these lines.

Portfolios of the Poor also describes how Grameen made enormous strides in learning from its own experience. In a series of reforms known as Grameen II, the bank began to offer a broader range of savings and credit accounts, and more flexibility as to when and how its clients could access them. A number of other Grameen inspired organizations continue to learn from these experiments. The Grameen Foundation, for example, promotes poverty reduction through microenterprise and technology, with recent innovations like Mobile Financial Services and Mobile Technology for Community Health (MoTech). Grameen America is adapting Yunus's original microlending archetype to serve the poor and unbanked in New York City.

Though microenterprise in developing countries has been an important testing ground for empirical research, the broader lessons about evaluation and experimentation are applicable across fields and are vital for American policy makers. In recent years, we have witnessed greater adoption of this approach in the U.S. in both the non-profit and public sectors. New York City's Center for Economic Opportunity (CEO), for example, aims to function as a kind of anti-poverty laboratory. Seeded primarily with philanthropic funds, the CEO pilots and evaluates innovative and untested social programs to assess which might be successfully scaled. The CEO has been cited as one of the models for the recent federal efforts in this area, including the new Office of Social Innovation in the White House, and its various funds and activities. In 2009, Peter Orszag, then the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, famously called for more rigorous and "evidenced based" evaluation of federally funded programs, advocating a kind of clinical trial methodology. Others have pointed to Duflo and Banerjee's J-PAL at MIT as an action lab template for other areas of public policy, from global climate change to domestic social programs.

Not surprisingly, a strict RCT approach raises a host of implementation concerns related to cost, ethics, and scope, and is not without detractors.  However, the spirit of this kind of inquiry, and the success of its numerous and modified applications, has helped to shift policy makers towards more risk-taking experimentation and exacting evaluation, both essential in the fight against entrenched and persistent poverty in the U.S. and around the world. This, too, will be a focus of my research in the coming months, and the subject of future posts. I welcome your comments.

Georgia Levenson Keohane is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Failing to Learn from the Past: FDR, Obama, and the Looming Double Dip

Jun 6, 2011David B. Woolner

The key difference between then and now is a president who learns from his economic mistakes.

The key difference between then and now is a president who learns from his economic mistakes.

Two recent articles in the New York Times make reference to the perilous state of the US economy and the possible political consequences for President Obama in 2012. In a piece entitled "Employment Data May Be the Key to the President's Job," Binyamin Appelbaum notes that no American president since FDR has won reelection with an unemployment rate higher than 7.2 percent on election day. He goes on to observe that, as most economists agree, we are unlikely to see a significant drop in the current rate over the next 12 to 18 months. President Obama must defy this historic trend if he wishes to keep his job.

In his editorial "The Mistake of 2010," Paul Krugman is similarly pessimistic about the state of the US economy and the prospects for significant gains in employment over the coming year. He takes issue with the Federal Reserve's recent assertion that quantitative easing has avoided the mistake that the Fed made in 1937. At that time, out of fear of inflation, it engaged in what Krugman calls a "premature fiscal and monetary pullback that aborted an ongoing economic recovery and prolonged the Great Depression." Krugman insists that not only was the original fiscal stimulus not large enough, but thanks to the deficit hawks on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, conventional wisdom has it that public enemy number 1 is no longer unemployment, but the deficit. The tragic result is that the possibility of further spending to stimulate the economy has all but vanished from the public discourse. Seen from this perspective, he argues that we have already repeated a version of the mistake of 1937 by withdrawing fiscal support much too early. He also fears that pressure from conservatives and European central banks over possible inflation may lead the Fed to reverse course and raise interest rates, even though we have a long way to go before we pull ourselves out of the current economic malaise.

Krugman calls all of this the "economic mistake of 2010," which he likens to a partial replay of the Great Depression. But there is one important difference. In the "Roosevelt Recession" of 1937-38, FDR and his economic advisers were quick to recognize their mistake. Instead of stubbornly holding course, they promptly reversed themselves and went back to Congress in the spring of 1938 to demand a massive increase in government spending. This spending was to put some of the millions who had lost their jobs due to the misguided policies of 1937 back to work. Within a few months, the downward spiral that was initiated by the 1937 pullback was over and the economic recovery -- that had been running at an average annual rate of 14 percent between 1933 and 1937 -- resumed.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, and event alerts.

Sadly, it seems highly unlikely that this President and Congress will draw the same lesson from the recession of 1937-38 that FDR and his advisors drew from their experience. Steeped in a bitter partisan divide and arguing not about how much the government should spend, but rather about how much it should cut, there appears little chance that we will see any meaningful attempt to alleviate the plight of the millions of Americans still suffering the burden of unemployment. With such gridlock in Washington, perhaps we would all do well to reflect on what FDR said as he struggled with those who criticized his policies and demanded he cut back on the New Deal:

Governments can err, Presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted in different scales. Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.

David Woolner is a Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

President Obama Reaffirms the "Special Relationship" with the UK

May 26, 2011David B. Woolner

The bond between the US and the UK runs deep, especially when it comes to their economies.

The bond between the US and the UK runs deep, especially when it comes to their economies.

In an historic speech before both houses of the British Parliament yesterday, President Obama reaffirmed the "special relationship" between Great Britain and the United States. He made reference to the joint sacrifices both countries have made on the battlefield in defense of freedom, taking special note of the wartime alliance and friendship between Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt that helped give birth to the relationship as the two nations fought "side by side to free a continent from the march of tyranny."

References to the alliance between Great Britain and the United States in World War II are of course entirely appropriate, as the "special relationship" as we know it began in the dark days of 1939-40. But the President also made reference to the two countries' strong economic ties and the fact that today we "live in a global economy that is largely of our own making."

Here, too, the President is correct. Yet most Americans remain largely unaware of this economic aspect of the "special relationship." Much of the global economy we operate in today does indeed have its origins not in the 1980s or 90s, but the 1940s, as Great Britain and the United States struggled to defeat fascism in Europe and Asia.

To understand this, let's take a look at the link between the Great Depression and World War II -- especially from the American perspective. For Franklin Roosevelt and his Secretary of State Cordell Hull, this link was not only obvious, but tragic. The two men, in fact, were absolutely convinced that the cause of the Second World War lay in the economic depravity and dislocation of trade and commerce that were the hallmarks of the Great Depression. Near the end of the war, for example, in his State of the Union address of January 1944, FDR observed that we "had come to a clear realization...that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made." And as early as the early 1930s, Cordell Hull was frequently quoted as saying, "If goods cannot cross borders, armies will."

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, and event alerts.

As a consequence of these beliefs, the Roosevelt administration committed itself to the concept of freer trade, beginning with the passage of Hull's Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act in 1934 and continuing right up through the war. Hull's policies took the United States in a new direction away from the high tariff policies of the Hoover years, and in many respects laid the foundation for the opening up of the world's trade immediately after the end of the Second World War. This was best exemplified by the establishment of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) in 1947.

Ironically, in response to the high tariffs of the Hoover administration, the British had established an intra-Empire trading system called "Imperial Preference" in 1932 that allowed most goods within the British Commonwealth to be traded with little or no tariff while keeping US goods out. This was an anathema to Hull, and during the war he used the leverage of Lend-Lease aid to try to get the British to drop it. Hull was never able to get the sort of rock solid commitment to ending Imperial Preference he would have liked, but under Article VII of the 1942 Lend Lease Consideration Agreement (governing Lend-Lease aid), the British did agree to take "joint action directed towards the creation of a liberalized international economic order in the postwar world."

By 1944, US military and economic preponderance was such that there was little doubt the Roosevelt administration had the upper hand in the "special relationship." As such, the agreements that were negotiated and signed at Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks that year (establishing the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and laying the groundwork for the United Nations) largely reflected the American, as opposed to the British, negotiating positions. The same was true a few years later when the GATT was signed in Geneva.

Viewed from this perspective, the Second World War was as much about the re-ordering of the world's economic system along American -- and away from British -- lines as it was about defeating fascism in Europe and Asia. Still, there is no question that during these years the United States considered British cooperation in this effort not only vital, but essential, for without it they doubted their plans for a new world order could succeed. While it may true that Great Britain has always been America's junior in the transatlantic partnership, President Obama is correct when he says that the Anglo-American relationship is not merely "special" but "essential" to the development of "a world that is more peaceful, more prosperous, and more just."

David Woolner is a Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Saving a “Lost Generation” Through the National Youth Administration

May 19, 2011David B. Woolner

We could use the ingenuity of FDR's program to combat unemployment and skill stagnation among the country's youth.

We could use the ingenuity of FDR's program to combat unemployment and skill stagnation among the country's youth.

As college seniors prepare to graduate across the country, recent reports on the state of employment among young people offer discouraging news. In 2010, for example, the unemployment rate for youth between the ages of 16 and 24 was 18.4 percent, and in January of 2011, the Department of Labor reported that it had climbed to a staggering 21 percent. Moreover, even for those college graduates lucky enough to find work, the jobs they acquire often pay less and do not require a college degree. And with grads taking on employment in the lower and unskilled market, the prospects for work among those without a college degree become even more discouraging. At the same time, those who do go to college in the hopes of better employment often graduate under a heavy burden of student loan debt -- an average of $22,900 for the class of 2011.

Statistics like these -- which represent the highest youth unemployment rate in more than 60 years and the highest level of student debt ever recorded -- have led to concerns about a the emergence of a "lost generation." Thanks to the Great Recession, this group may lose skills and/or follow a career trajectory that will place them in a lower income bracket for years.

Such concerns are not new. More than three-quarters of a century ago, Franklin Roosevelt faced a similar set of problems. During the Great Depression, youth unemployment was estimated to be as high as 30 percent and many young people found themselves unable to afford the cost of even a high school education. Taking stock of these grim statistics, Eleanor Roosevelt remarked in 1934 that she often had "moments of real terror when I think we might be losing this generation." To combat this problem, the Roosevelt administration created a unique federal agency dedicated to helping young people: the National Youth Administration.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, and event alerts.

The National Youth Administration (NYA) was launched by executive order in June of 1935. Its goals were two-fold. The first was to prevent young people already enrolled in high school and college from dropping out due to financial hardship. This was accomplished by providing the students with grants in return for part-time work in libraries, cafeterias, as janitors, etc., with the twin objectives of developing the talents of young people while at same time keeping them out of the struggling labor market. The second goal was to provide training and/or employment of long-term value. By 1937, more than 400,000 youth were either employed or in job training programs under the auspices of local NYA offices. With the outbreak of the war in Europe in 1939 these figures increased significantly, with the vast majority of those in the program getting training as skilled machinists to work in the nation's burgeoning defense industries. The productive labor of these NYA-trained workers helped turn the United States into the great "Arsenal of Democracy" that made it possible for us to win the war against fascism.

Moreover, under the leadership of such enlightened figures as Aubrey Williams, the NYA also worked to specially address the problems of unemployment and access to education among African Americans. Williams created an Office of Minority Affairs headed by Mary McLeod Bethune, who would soon become one of the most effective and outspoken advocates for the employment and educational rights of blacks in the country.

Overall, the NYA helped over 4.5 million young people find work, get vocational training, or afford a better education before the office was closed down in 1943. Equally important, it helped a struggling generation not only to maintain its dignity, but also to contribute to the growth and productivity of the American economy at a desperate time in our history. Indeed, even though the NYA was a federal program, it became enormously popular among the business community and offers us a fine example of what enlightened leadership can do in a moment of great crisis. Surely providing jobs and making education and vocational training more affordable for young people is an investment in our future that this generation of Americans -- and all generations -- deserve. With youth unemployment approaching 25 percent, and with the cost of higher education skyrocketing, perhaps it is time to offer this generation the hope and promise of another NYA.

David Woolner is a Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Eli Pariser's New Book Tackles the "Filter Bubble"

May 16, 2011

filter-bubble 150We're all familiar by now with Google's attempts to predict what we want to find on the internet before we know it ourselves. You start typing and it instantly starts trying to fill in the rest of your search.

filter-bubble 150We're all familiar by now with Google's attempts to predict what we want to find on the internet before we know it ourselves. You start typing and it instantly starts trying to fill in the rest of your search. What we may be paying less attention to is the way that Google and other sites are filtering the information that we read. Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Eli Pariser's new book, "The Filter Bubble," takes a deep look at this phenomenon and what it means for the way we get our information and what kind of information we get.

When he first joined the Roosevelt Institute, Eli took up one of FDR's key beliefs. "In his famous Four Freedoms speech, Franklin Roosevelt made clear that freedom of speech and expression was an essential human freedom," he said. "Protecting that freedom in the connected world we now live in is going to be the focus of my work here at Roosevelt. And specifically, I’m going to look at the way automatic personalization is monumentally changing how we consume information and communicate as a society."

In an interview with ND20 Editor Lynn Parramore, Eli explained the problem further.

Increasingly on the Internet, websites are personalizing themselves to suit our interests... If you have Google doing that, and you have Yahoo doing that, and you have Facebook doing that, and you have all of the top sites on the Web customizing themselves to you, then your information environment starts to look very different from anyone else’s. And that’s what I’m calling the “filter bubble”: that personal ecosystem of information that’s been catered by these algorithms to who they think you are.

But what's really the problem here? He explains that this type of filtering creates a feedback loop where no one has to bump up against ideas or information they don't already know or believe.

We thought that the Internet was going to connect us all together... What it’s looking like increasingly is that the Web is connecting us back to ourselves. There’s a looping going on where if you have an interest, you’re going to learn a lot about that interest. But you’re not going to learn about the very next thing over. And you certainly won’t learn about the opposite view.

For more on this problem and how to solve it, make sure to pick up a copy of "The Filter Bubble." Bill McKibben, author of "Eaarth," has called the book a "masterpiece," and David Kirkpatrick, author of "The Facebook Effect," says it is a "must-read."

Share This

When Faced with Floods, FDR Fought Back with Jobs

May 12, 2011David B. Woolner

FDR chose action to combat flooding and soil erosion that did much more than conserve land.

FDR chose action to combat flooding and soil erosion that did much more than conserve land.

The massive flooding that struck the Midwest in recent days has led a number of climatologists to argue that this event -- along with the occurrence of similar floods in Australia, Pakistan and elsewhere -- is further indication of the impact of the increase in greenhouse gasses in the earth's atmosphere. The warmer air associated with the increase holds more moisture, and the greater the moisture content, the greater the level of precipitation. Hence the record snowfalls for the upper Midwest this season and the extraordinary amounts of rain that much of the region received in April (Paducah Kentucky, for example, received 22 inches of rain in April, as compared to the average 5.4 inches it usually receives).

For the vast majority of scientists -- and for an increasing number of individuals and institutions in other parts of the world -- the potential impact of climate change is being viewed with growing alarm. But in Washington, just the opposite is true. The US House of Representatives recently rejected an amendment that would have put the House on record as acknowledging that global warming is occurring and that human activity is the major cause. In this milieu, and in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there is almost no chance that we will see any significant climate legislation emerge from the current Congress.

Interestingly, 75 years ago the United States faced a very similar natural disaster in the form of the Great Flood of 1936. Unlike today, however, the death and destruction that struck much of the eastern United States as a result of the flood spurred Congress into action. It passed of one of the most significant -- though lesser-known -- pieces of legislation to come out of the New Deal: the Flood Control Act of 1936.

Recognizing for the first time "that destructive floods upon the rivers of the United States constitute a menace to national welfare" and that "flood control on navigable waters or their tributaries is a proper activity of the Federal Government in cooperation with States," the Roosevelt administration worked with members of Congress to pass the first piece of legislation to provide for national flood relief. The hundreds of reservoir, levee, and channelization projects that resulted from the 1936 act protected millions of acres of farmland, saved countless lives, and literally changed the face of the nation. Taken together, the projects that came about as a consequence of the act constitute one of the largest additions to our nation's economic infrastructure, on par with the development of the nation's highway system. Moreover, in keeping with the spirit of the New Deal, the construction of many of these flood control projects (which usually took place under the auspices of the US Army Corps of Engineers) also spurred local and regional economic growth and helped conserve one of our nation's most precious resources -- our soil.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, and event alerts.

It was perhaps soil erosion, in fact, more than any other issue that drove President Roosevelt to support the passage of the flood control act. Having seen the dire consequences of the Dust Bowl, and as a great lover and believer in the restorative power of the land, FDR was deeply concerned about the long-term productivity of American topsoil. To combat erosion, he not only passed the Flood Control Act of 1936, but also established the Soil Conservation Service, which encouraged farmers to adopt more environmentally friendly practices; the Civilian Conservation Corps, which helped restore our nation's forests; and the Tennessee Valley Authority, which not only helped control erosion in the Tennessee River Valley, but also provided inexpensive hydroelectric power to an entire region of the country.

Most importantly, all of these programs helped create jobs and spur economic activity. And while today many environmentalists might take issue with certain aspects of the flood control work that came about as a consequence of the act (such as the channelization of rivers and streams), few would take issue with the spirit of conservation that inspired it.

The Flood Control Act of 1936 is but one example of the remarkable record of legislative achievements that came about in the 74th Congress. In response to the needs of a people in the midst of both environmental and economic crisis, members of Congress worked with the Roosevelt administration to pass not only this landmark piece of legislation, but also the Social Security Act, National Labor Relations Act, Banking Act of 1935, Soil Conservation Act, and the $4.8 billion Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, out of which came the WPA, among other programs.

It is perhaps the best testament to our current era that this Congress, facing a remarkably similar set of circumstances, has chosen not "action and action now," as FDR would put it, but rather to do nothing.

David Woolner is a Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Bringing the Invisible Triumphs of the New Deal to Light

May 6, 2011Gray Brechin

fdr-we-need-you-150Criticism of one of the nation's most important programs can be stopped in its tracks by exposing how it improved our lives.

fdr-we-need-you-150Criticism of one of the nation's most important programs can be stopped in its tracks by exposing how it improved our lives.

Even those who remain unanimous in their hatred of what FDR accomplished unwittingly use and enjoy what he left behind. They can't avoid it; that legacy is as inescapable as it is indispensable. Before they succeed in wrecking it completely, we should learn at least to see it. For to do so will demonstrate what democratic government at its best can accomplish for all the people, rather than just those who can afford to buy it at discount.

The University of Chicago swamis whose neoliberal theories have wrought such havoc don't drink their own sewage because the Public Works Administration rebuilt their town's water system. Congressmen unalterably opposed to government spending and the K Street lobbyists plying them fly in and out of Reagan National Airport unaware that it -- like most of the nation's airports -- was built by the WPA (which also saved its namesake's bacon). Even the capital city itself is largely a New Deal creation. Those who enjoy the national parks, forests, and monuments threatened with closure by the GOP use lodges, trails, roads, and historic shrines built or improved by CCC "boys." If Amity Shlaes' children enjoy Central Park's playgrounds or zoo, or if they visit the Statue of Liberty, they owe a debt of gratitude to the New Deal workers who improved them seventy-five years ago.

That New Deal critics like Shlaes do not know they are using its legacy is hardly surprising: little of it -- like the thousands of mature trees that arch over my hometown's streets -- is marked. Nor would FDR's enemies want to acknowledge it, let alone what those creations did to rescue millions from despair, suicide, and crime. To do so would deal a body blow to their most cherished fantasies. It is far easier to repeat the mantra that "the New Deal didn't end the Depression, the war did" than to examine the falsity of that declaration, as my colleague Richard Walker and I have done. Nor would it buttress their argument to admit the extent to which federal investment during the Great Depression helped win the war and paid huge dividends when it was over.

It’s free! Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

Take, for example, the public education that, we are told, the world's richest country can no longer afford. Many New Dealers had extensive experience in social work and shared the conviction that it is far cheaper and better for a society to uplift than to punish. The WPA and PWA therefore built thousands of modern schools and few prisons. They erected magnificent academic buildings and athletic facilities at the nation's public universities, and they constructed entire community college campuses. They built public libraries and museums as well, while WPA workers preserved and indexed collections for use today. WPA artists embellished many structures, such as Brooklyn College's library, with art exhorting students to match and surpass the achievements of the past. Their inscriptions continue to advise us: "Enter to Learn, Go Forth to Serve" and "Education -- The Defense of the State."

Meanwhile, over three million young men -- many of them down-and-outers -- received education in thousands of camps when they were not toiling to repair what unbridled market forces had done to the nation's land. Today in their 80s and 90s, many of those veterans credit the three C's with giving them an invaluable start in life.

We all stand today on the shoulders of giants who, unlike the veterans of our wars, have rarely been acknowledged for what they did for us. No museum exists for New Deal accomplishments, and only a few statues of "Iron John" remind visitors to our parks of the debt they owe to the men of the CCC.

For six years, I have been working with others to map what the New Deal's public works agencies did for California. Now based at the U.C. Berkeley Department of Geography, the Living New Deal inventory is going national in an effort to engage thousands of Americans in a collective act of rediscovery. In the process, we will learn once again what enlightened governance can accomplish when it sets out to build not Dodge City but a civilization worthy of the name.

Gray Brechin is an historical geographer, visiting scholar in the U.C. Berkeley Department of Geography and founder and project scholar of California’s Living New Deal Project.

*Read about how the CCC brought editor Lynn Parramore's grandfather something he always appreciated: a 'two-seater' toilet!  'Of Agee, Oil and Outhouses'

Share This

Bold, Persistent Experimentation vs. Bold Persistence

May 6, 2011Robert McElvaine

fdr-profile-serious-150FDR knew that even when an idea failed, he had to keep trying.  Republicans think that if they keep trying the same thing, they can't fail.

fdr-profile-serious-150FDR knew that even when an idea failed, he had to keep trying.  Republicans think that if they keep trying the same thing, they can't fail.

It would be difficult to imagine a better illustration of the stark difference between the political and ideological aftermaths of the economic collapses of 1929 and 2008 than the statement made on Thursday, the eve of the anniversary of the inauguration of the WPA in 1935, by House Speak John Boehner.

“Nothing is off the table except raising taxes,” Mr. Boehner declared when addressing negotiations on raising the debt ceiling. “I believe that raising taxes will hurt our economy and hurt job creation in our country.”

What we are seeing yet again is a clash between faith-based economics and fact-based economics.

Mr. Boehner and most of his fellow Republicans are people of faith. Their faith, though, is not in God, but in the Market. Their devil is the government. They know the Truth, and facts and evidence will not shake their faith.

It’s free! Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

The same difference between policy based on faith and on facts was the greatest one between Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The former was an ideologue, the latter a pragmatist. In 1932, FDR exemplified the fact-based approach when he famously called for “bold, persistent experimentation” and said, “It is common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.” For his part, Mr. Hoover, like most people in his party today, was oblivious to evidence. His position (and, far more, that of today’s full-blown believers in the Market God) was: Take the Method (as they see it, there is only one) and try it. If it fails, deny its failure and try it again -- and again . . . and again . . . . But, above all, keep trying the same thing.

Low taxes on the rich, little government regulation, and concentration of wealth and income at the very top led to the Great Depression. When they were reinstated during the administration of George W. Bush, those policies produced the Great Recession. In between, when President Bill Clinton proposed a modest increase in the top marginal tax rate as part of his 1993 budget proposal, “conservative” economists predicted disaster and, basing their positions on received dogma, every Republican in Congress voted against the Clinton budget plan. It was followed by a period of sustained prosperity and a budget surplus.

Those facts make no impression on ideologues of the right. Nor does the fact that such government programs as the WPA substantially mitigated the ill effects of the Depression for millions of its victims and that similar programs would do the same today.

The difference boils down to this: Bold, persistent experimentation versus bold persistence.

Robert S. McElvaine is Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts & Letters and Professor of History at Millsaps College in Jackson, Mississippi and the author of ten books, including The Great Depression: America, 1929-1941.

Share This