Don't forget that Wilson also famously snubbed Ho Chi Minh at Versailles. There probably wouldn't have been a Vietnam War if Wilson would have dealt with Ho in good faith.
Ronald Reagan was a great President, he stimulated our economy, & took us out of the inflationary crisis of the '70s, & even though we suffered another deep recession from 1981 to 1982, he pulled us out of the economic crisis that gave us the greatest economic growth since the 1950s, the longest stock market boom in decades, he helped to end the Cold War, he restored our faith & morale, when countries in the Caribbean, Africa, etc, fell to the Communists under previous administrations, no country fell to Communism in the 8 year tenure of Ronald Reagan, in fact, many countries turned away from Communism & the seeds were planted for the eventual demise of Eurocommunism & the USSR.
John Tyler was independent minded. He gave us Texas. He stuck to his guns & was willing to go against his party & the opposition party to fight for what he believed was good for the country.
I'm at 20:33, so just after the Tyler section. No mention of the fact he later became a traitor and defected to the Confederacy. If I were making an objective assessment of a president I'd have considered that worth mentioning.
This was a very interesting lecture but I can't help but come away thinking Reed only really cares about taxes and tariffs. His verdicts here seem to me to be both flawed and incredibly self-indulgent. Whilst I can agree with some of his choices (Wilson, for example) and the reasons given for them, to pluck such an obscure character as Garfield as one of America's best presidents is just bizarre. An impressive and highly intelligent man he may well have been, but he is chiefly known for having been killed. His legacy is almost non-existent, and I'm not willing to give him a free pass based on the fact he had a high IQ and was reluctant to assume the office. Reed also cites Lincoln being a late convert to the Abolitionist movement as being a mark against him. That's fair enough, but he has also chosen none other than John Tyler as one of the best presidents, despite Tyler being a slave owner himself and later siding with the Confederacy. Indeed, Tyler died a traitor after having been sworn into the Confederate Congress. I'm not at all against Reed's general train of thought here, and I hold Coolidge in high regard for similar reasons. I also think it's interesting he nominated Cleveland, even if his second term was largely a failure - though perhaps for reasons outside of his control. I think placing character and consistency as criteria for a great president is fair enough, but then in the same lecture he chooses to ridicule Carter. He's also very damning of Obama's record in office, yet has chosen to ignore Bush - the man who racked up the huge debt Obama had to contend with. I was surprised not to see Bush even mentioned given that he did everything Reed claims to be against: he started foreign wars, he abused the Constitution, he infringed civil liberties, and so on. Reed's view seems to be that small government classical liberals with a hands-off approach and a respect for the law and Constitution make the best presidents. This may well be true, and he's far from alone in thinking that, but I find his arguments weak and entirely one-sided; he lists things he feels help make his case whilst neglecting to list anything which does not, and for that reason I find him to be at least somewhat intellectually dishonest.
The Panic of 1893 was caused by overbuilding of the railroads. The government subsidized railroads, giving them money by the amount of tracks they laid which caused overexpansion. That overexpansion needed to be liquidated, which led to railroad failures. Since the banks had large interests in the railroads, when the railroads failed, it took the banks down with them. He calls Harrison a big spender and lauds Cleveland as a budget hawk, but during Harrison's term there was a net surplus, during Cleveland's two terms there was a net deficit.
very interesting lecture but ... how can you judge FDR's presidency without even mentioning the war, the greatest catastrophe the world had ever seen until then ?? ...beside that I mostly agree on Wilson and seriously doubt that the United States would have become a world power without a central bank and an efficent infrastructure to move people and goods across the country.
Read Sutton's wall St and FDR. In it he talks about FDR's involvement in looting Germany in the 20s and how he handed out copies of Gentile's book laying proposing Fascism to his cabinet
I have watched many of these kinds of videos and even now as I typed this heard "you are learning all the wrong things" when it concerns these topics. My question, if a person can follow the paths to see where the financial corruption began, why can't they tell us how? It is all "legal process", correct? Then why hasn't that process been revealed? The legislation? The one who voted for it? With as long as this corruption has been able to exist, who knows about it and who don't?
The problem is not really difficult to understand. Our representatives don't actually represent us. They represent the wealthy. Be that corporations, unions, billionaires or foreign governments. They are loyal to the money. Until we recognize this basic flaw we will never fix it. Now the solution is simple but good luck implementing it. Pass an amendment. A representative of the people on a local, state or federal level may only accept donations from the individual citizens they actually or seek to represent. A citizen may only donate .5% of their yearly income per election cycle. A representative may not accept any remuneration from any individual, group or organization that benefited from any legislation the representative passed while in office, ever. That's the gist of it. If representative can only get money from the citizens they represent, that's who they'll actually represent. But the corruption runs too deep to pass it. Maybe after the collapse the next lot can put it in from the beginning.
@@wambutu7679 there is a reason their loyalty isn't to us. Loans are typically refered to as a "note". Ever noticed that the paper that is called money has "Federal Reserve NOTE" at the top of it? As long as the wealthiest people are able to create "money" out of this air, it don't matter the guidelines you proposed. If this fiat currency wasn't allowed, we wouldn't need the guidelines either.
@@wambutu7679 Of course they represent us, the people just don't care as long as they get their bread and circuses. People always get the government they deserve.
@@leebright3406 *sigh* All money is created "out of thin air". Everything from animals to metal to giant stone wheels that aren't even physically exchanged have been money, because money is ultimately an exchange of value through some trusted medium of exchange. Gold standards were fiat currency because by government decree, _the definition of fiat,_ an arbitrary amount of gold was worth an arbitrary amount of currency. On the other hand, _nothing_ is fiat currency because they only work when people trust them as mediums of exchange, not because the government said so.
Roxie has adopted Trump’s name-calling childishness like so many others, alas. I hope for the sake of the country that we can one day shed his influence.
Grover Cleveland's inherited the problem from the previous Republican administration when the the Sherman Silver Purchase Act was passed which would lead to the Panic of 1893, the year Cleveland started his second term. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Qu_b6N-G1Os.html
FDR inspired a nation during two of it's worst crisis. He didn't get us out of the Depression, but he did get people to work again, he led us through WWII. Granted, he might have been the 1st Holocaust denier to be President, & some chastise him for the internment camps, but his fireside chats rallied the country. He had a winning smile that inspired confidence, plus he showed great courage after being struck by Polio.
This talk is so derivative of the writing and speeches of George Will. And Will delivers the same views with style and wit. E.g., the rating of President Wilson. Listening to this talk after something by Will was for me a waste of time. I would also urge anyone to hear the opposing points of view before celebrating those here. But finding a genuine issues debate on the Internet is very difficult.
I wholeheartedly agree with FDR being one of our worst presidents. To want the tax rate for those making 25K at 80% and desire for the tax rate for those making more to be at 100%, 100% is well into WTF territory. FDR's polio paralyzed more than just his legs, or there was something sinister about this, albeit sinister in a, "Dumb And Dumber", sort of way. And, given that this seminar was given before Obama's administration, Woodrow Wilson, I agree was our very worst president.
Small government is a nice idea ....yet it is small government that makes such a problem because when problems happen (covid pandemic etc , the government can’t react.... it is not that it’s size is the issue it is the issue of organization....) socialism makes more sense , but it needs to be equal starting lines for all people .... ) there is no reason for billionaires to exist unless they are paying their workers above a living wage. EVERY WORKER OF A BILLIONAIRE SHOULD BE PAID AT LEAST 75k ..... the problem is that we do not have free markets (if you are a “republican” tho in 2020 I don’t see how anyone could support either Party ) Bernie Sanders would be the only candidate at a time that I could have supported . Today we are in a bad way in America with trumps lying and BULLSHIT .
The government caused the COVID economic situation by closing businesses the government couldn’t and shouldn’t have reacted because they don’t know the answer and caused more damage then if we had keep everything open
The poor and rich have been getting richer this isn’t a one sided thing not to mention how Bernie sanders would’ve ruined the economy with things like a $15 minimum wage which would’ve made monopoly’s and high unemployment
"this is going to be controversial with some... Roosevelt" not controversial with me! Anybody know how many of the new deal alphabet offices are still with us in some form?
F.D.R.was elected and reelected by wide margins four different times.The jobs market increased and unemployment went down.F.D.R.would have never been President if The Great Depression had not started under Republicans.The Great Depression was not easy to stop.The stock markets and the banks took years to get back on track.
I don't think you were listening too well. The '29 stock market crash was the fault of FED policy, Instead of letting the correction work its way out naturally, Hoover made it worse by his interventionist policies, FDR who ran for office as the anti-Hoover, promised to cut federal spending but once elected he was Hoover on steroids. The FDR administration and its crackpot policies caused the Depression to get worse and last the entire decade and more. There would have never been a Great Depression if FDR had cut federal spending and not intervened in so many idiotic ways with insane policies.
Even though I probably agree with this historians political views, he gave too many anecdotes. I don't care about Grover Cleveland's personal health problems.
James Garfield could have been a good President, but he passed from his wounds after he was assassinated. I only put him on my list as the worst because I couldn't think of anything he did, but he was a staunch supporter of civil rights, he pushed for civil service reform that his successor Chester Arthur would accomplish, perhaps I should take him off the worst list, & put him on the could have been list.
John Fordham Lincoln kept the country together , ended slavery and wanted to welcome the South into the Union without any malice so I guess that is what you consider a monster SMH
Andrew Johnson would have been a good President, but unfortunately, he was constantly thwarted by a hostile Congress bent on vengeance. He continued Lincoln's reconciliation policies, Johnson gave us Alaska, he saved the Presidency from being degraded to a figurehead role when he was acquitted by 1 vote when he was impeached. As far as him being "racist ", Andrew Johnson was no more racist than Lincoln or anyone else who lived in those days, granted he wasn't someone you want to have a beer with, but he was a strict Constitutionalist, he's even buried with a copy of the Constitution.
If you asked anyone in 1945 if he or she was better off than in 1932, the reply would have been a rotund yes. FDR was a great president. Keynesian economics make more sense in a depressed economy than doing nothing and letting " the market" fix itself. That's simply cruelty. That the New Deal prolongued the depression is simply ridiculous. What did end the depression then? World War II and the war effort, which meant total government intervention in the economy.
Fer Abra every depression had a quick recovery so it is expected that the economy would recover. The Great Depression was only Great due to the bad intervention from the government. Ohanian and Cole basically proved this with their research that showed it was extended mamy years.
WHY DON'T SMART, CONSCIENTOUS MEN LIKE MR. LAWRENCE REED RUN FOR HIGH POLITICAL OFFICE!!! ...EVIL MEN SUCCEED, WHEN GOOD MEN DO NOTHING TO OPPOSE THEM!
Uhh... open bribery (with other people's money) is the current state of politics; politicians _campaign_ on bribery. Anyone running on a clean platform would be run out of town on a rail for daring to deny people the bread and circuses they think they deserve.
The speaker is so conservative that his politics decided who was best and worse.... it is actually sad, because it had no basis on historical or the points he first said. Very disappointing
as opposed to ..? a leftist, supporting socializing our nation into the opposite of what it was created to be? a Hatch Act nay-sayer? every point he made was an observation on historical facts that he's applied the lens of retrospective analysis to in order to determine worth. Or is it that Obama isn't in his top 3? ;)
Betty, you must have never indulged yourself and studied real history. Instead you've let the gate keepers of the church of big government tell you what history was.
