Did the New Deal Prolong the Great Depression? Yes: Burton W. Folsom, Jr. * The Cabinet head had personal connections with the President. Made him bias towards FDR’s ideas * Unemployment was higher in 1939 than in 1931 after hoover left office * Govt went from running a surplus to a deficit * Seven Years of trade deficits cursed American GDP over the span of the New Deal * Welfare and Social Security kept lazy people lazy and made hard working people take pay cuts * The economy is self regulating and self healing; it would have fixed itself in time(not 12 years though) * IT was “Constraints School” The US economy was in a nose-dive for the first 6 years of FDR’s presidency, but he kept the Ether up and promised progress * Roosevelt Raised taxes across the board… Sounds familiar to what is going on now… damn Obama * If the war did not come about, FDR would not have lasted the 4 terms. NO: Roger Biles *
FDR believed Taking a method and trying it until it worked or didn’t. It it did, then keep doing it; if it didn’t admit that defeat and try something else. He used the Federal Gov’t to “help” regulate the economy(kind of like genetically engineering which also doesn’t work 100% of the time) * Unemployment decreased over the first 5 years of FDR’s presidency * The FDIC insured everyone’s money that is in the bank which is something that the US needed in 1929 * FDR created hope for everyone with Social Security, Welfare and Section 8 housing * He created the US postal service, rural electrification act, and rural mail act * Roosevelt changed the form of Gov’t in a short 12 years * He created “Wealth Tax” (sounds familiar AGAIN! which “affected Very few taxpayers” * He then Repealed the “Wealth Tax” because it didn’t work FDR’s new deal was a great idea in theory(so is Marxism), but wasn’t the best idea for the time. What he did is kind of what we are going through today: Promising change but not saying when, Increasing taxes and hoping it will help your deficit, and tried to intervene with the self regulating economy. The New Deal DID work, but only because WWII brought the need for production back to America; without that, the New Deal would have taked much much longer to work.
Book review – A critical analysis of the ideas, structure, and methodology (among other things) of a given book. This
Book review – A critical analysis of the ideas, structure, and methodology (among other things) of a given book. This is your assignment. Two-part Rough Guideline for doing a book review: 1. First, determine what the purpose of the book is. Does the book have a main ideas or ideas that it seeks to prove? A book called Cuba and the United States: Ties of Singular Intimacy is clearly suggesting that there is something special about the relationship between the two countries. You, the reviewer, must first determine what that “something” is. 2. Second, you must ask yourself two questions: (a) How does the author go about supporting the main idea(s) of the book? (b) How well does the author go about supporting those ideas? These two questions will form the meat and potatoes of your essay. Answering questions (a) and (b). There is no exact path to take at this point, for each book is different. The primary thing you must do is to follow the argument that the author makes, and to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of that argument. Because each argument is different, no two reviews will follow the same path. However, it is possible to suggest some things to look for: 1. What are the author’s sources? Where does the author obtain his or her information? Look in the footnotes/endnotes and bibliography for this. 2. Is there an obvious bias? Does the author seem to have an ax to grind? Does the author omit obvious sources, for example? (A book about the Holocaust that didn’t use survivors’ accounts, for example, omits an obvious source.) As another example, are the author’s political view obvious? 3. Does the author’s logic make sense? Is there any logic to the author’s main points? Does that logic flow naturally from the information presented? 4. Does the writing style and the structure of the book make is easy or hard to follow its points? 5. Were you convinced, and did you learn anything new and/or valuable from reading this work? 6. Make use of some of the analytical techniques we have discussed in class. For example, what factors does the author consider to be most important in causation? Does the author emphasize ideas, social forces, individual personalities, or something else? Does the author emphasize the importance of continuity aver change, or vice-versa? Do you find the author’s analytical choices appropriate? These are only examples. There are other questions that you might ask, depending on the source. 7. It is important to note that if you can find no main idea or logic to the book, that’s a valid point, and you would show that by following these same questions, and demonstrating the author’s failures. 8. Remember – each source is different. Please feel free to ask me about issues concerning your particular book. Length: This review should be 3-4 pages long, or about 650-860 words long. Citation: Please put at the top of the first page a bibliographic citation so that I will know what you have read. The citation should look like this: Author’s Name. The Title of the Book. Place of publication: Name of the publishing company, Date of publication. Example: Arnold Toynbee. Mankind and Mother Earth: A Narrative History of the World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.
Essay Writing at Online Custom Essay
Review This Service