Showing posts with label Franklin Roosevelt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Franklin Roosevelt. Show all posts

Thursday, July 28, 2016

BOOK REVIEW: "The Death and Life of Great American Cities", by Jane Jacobs


"For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind."
2 Timothy 1:7

[Author's Note: We finished this book close to a month ago.  It's taken that long to digest.  While now is the appropriate time to commit these thoughts to writing, we will continue to unpack it in the coming months.]

The Death and Life of Great American Cities. by Jane Jacobs, is the most challenging book we've read in some time.  Written in 1961, the book details the failures of 'urban planning' wrought by the bureaucrats of that era.  Sadly, many of those attitudes have not only persisted among policy makers, it has expanded and become more entrenched.  All of Jacobs' predictions have, unfortunately, come to pass.  At the same time, however, Jacobs investigates and presents common traits of successful urban areas.  The problem is finding political will to implement them.  The final result is a product that, regardless of the political preconceptions one brings to the effort, will confirm some while rocking others to the core.

The biggest takeaway from Jacobs is that successful cities emerge from spontaneous order, not central planning.  Jacobs is SCATHING towards the ethos of the latter that, unfortunately, prevails to this day.  She decries a system where, "[O]nly supermen could understand a great city as a total, or as whole groups of districts, in the detail that is needed for guiding constructive actions and for avoiding unwitting, gratuitous, destructive actions" (410).  Residents of urban neighborhood are victimized by bureaucrats who "too often, we believe, make decisions about it from desks downtown" (122).  Even worse, "[E]xtraordinary governmental financial incentives have been required to achieve this degree of monotony, sterility, and vulgarity" (7).  Ouch.  And that's a small sample.

The biggest area where we were personally challenged was sidewalks.  In Jacobs' view, lively sidewalks are so essential to urban vitality that she devotes three chapters to the subject.  A widely used network of sidewalks is the foundation of public safety.  As Jacobs explains, safety is "kept primarily by an intricate, almost unconscious, network of voluntary controls" (32).  When people use a city street for daily activity, it begets a sufficient number of eyes and ears to maintain public safety.  In the context of a city like Austin, which has a sidewalk deficit stretching back decades, this example illustrates how a modest expenditure on sidewalks could have an additional benefit beyond mobility.

Another critical component of successful streets is multiple uses over the course of the day.  Jacobs explains: "[T]he continuity of this movement (which gives the street its safety) depends on an economic foundation of basic mixed uses" (135).  For example, this concept would encourage the integration of residential and commercial uses over segregation via zoning laws.  When businesses serve their customers, in addition to the obvious economic benefits, it simultaneously creates a level of foot traffic that keeps residents safe.  And that's before we discuss the convenience factor we discuss the convenience factor of completing daily tasks within a short distance.

Speaking of zoning, another fun discussion was land-use restrictions for commercial locations.  Long story short: zoning restrictions create barriers to entry where competitive ecosystems had previously flourished.  This might be the greatest sentence of all time: "This protection -- which is nothing less than commercial monopoly -- is considered very 'progressive' in planning circles" (195).

That being said, nothing could have prepared us for Jacobs' discussion of the origins of sub-urbanization.  It turns out current suburban land use patterns are a New Deal legacy.  We quote Jacobs in full because there's nothing we can add:
The idea of diverting huge sums of money to thin suburban growth at the expense of starving city districts was no invention of the mortgage lenders (although they, as well as suburban builders, have now acquired a vested interesting in this routine).  Neither the ideal nor the method of accomplishing it originated logically within the credit system itself.  It originated with high-minded social thinkers.  By the 1930's, when the FHA methods for stimulating suburban growth were worked out, virtually every wise man of government -- from right to left -- was in favor of the objectives, although they might differ with one another on methods.  A few years previously, Herbert Hoover had opened the first White House Conference on Housing with a polemic against the moral inferiority of cities and a panegyric on the moral virtues of simple cottages, small towns and grass.  At an opposite political pole, Rexford G. Tugwell, the federal administrator responsible for the New Deal's Green Belt demonstration suburbs, explained, "My idea is to go just outside centers of population, pick up cheap land, build a whole community and entice people into it.  Then go back into the cities and tear down whole slums and make parks of them.  (310)
To put it mildly, this website has no use for the legacy of either Herbert Hoover or Franklin Roosevelt.

That's not to say, however, that density is a magic bullet.  Jacobs: "to assume that this is 'the' answer would be to oversimplify outrageously" (204).  To have a central planner decree 'let there be density' and dedicate large sums of money for this purpose would invite the same dangers giving central planners large sums of money always invites.  Instead, density should be encouraged over time, "densities should be raised...gradually rather than in some sudden, cataclysmic upheaval to be followed by nothing more for decades" (216); in other words, spontaneous order over central planning.

Jacobs makes several other fantastic points that we can't work into a coherent narrative, so we list them without comment:

  • Schools can't create 'good neighborhoods' (113).
  • A successful neighborhood has to be big and powerful enough to fight city hall (122).
  • The project that ultimately became the World Trade Center was doomed from the start (157).
  • "Public policy cannot directly inject private enterprise" (167).
  • Old buildings allow businesses that can't support new construction to be economically viable (188).
  • Cities are incubators of new industry (197); thus, it's completely natural for businesses to be in the city during their startup phase and move to the suburbs as they mature and need more space.
  • "The problem with paternalists is that they want to make impossibly profound changes and they choose impossibly superficial means for doing so" (271).
    • Author's Note: That's SERIOUSLY amazing....
  • Allowing neighborhoods to gradually 'unslum' on their own doesn't make special interests rich (288).
  • The federal tax code encourages slumlords (316).
  • Corruption gets "more inventive" over time (355).
  • Food trucks can add tremendous neighborhood diversity at minimal cost (396).
An online review cannot do this book justice.  It's taken a month to collect our thoughts to this point.  Read The Death and Life of Great American Cities for yourself with an open mind and an understanding that Jacobs doesn't fall neatly along the left/right spectrum.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

History Lesson: Ted Cruz castigates Ex-Im "Bank"


"Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight."
Proverbs 11:1

The federal Export-Import 'bank' is one of the most noxious pieces of corporate welfare in existence today.  Little more than a taxpayer-financed slush fund for Boeing, the bank nevertheless draws support from both Democrats and legacy R's.  After an attempt to abolish it fell short last year, it's once again up for re-authorization in June.

This afternoon, on a hunch, we decided to check Ted Cruz's position on the issue:
The Export-Import Bank is big businesses' big-government bank backed by U.S. taxpayers. It sends huge amounts of assistance toforeign corporations, buyers, and companies that are hostile to our economic and security interests, but can afford armies of lobbyists to access easy financing backed by American taxpayers.
Contrary to the values that keep America strong, safe and free, the Export-Import Bank has facilitated lending to governments in Congo and Sudan, countries with horrifichuman rights records. It has financed Chinese power plants and backed Russian billionaires buying luxury planes. And, it has provided lots and lots of financing to oil companies in Russia, Brazil, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia that compete directly with America's energy companies.
Americans shouldn't be forced to finance those who are actively working against them, as a basic matter of prudence. The Export-Import Bank operates outside of commonsense.
There's nothing inherently wrong with big business — and President Obama is wrong to constantly demagogue them — but they don't need special handouts from government. Especially when the government favors hurt other U.S. businesses and jeopardize American jobs.
For example, last year the Export-Import Bank was rebuked by a federal court for failing to fully consider that the support it sent to a state-owned Indian airline wasundercutting Delta, putting up to 7,500 American jobs at risk.
Kudos to Senator Cruz for leading the charge against this Franklin Roosevelt era slush fund for Boeing.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

The Kronies (Episode 1): Laughing all the way to the (Ex-Im) Bank


"Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight."
Proverbs 11:1

The latest from (Austin Based!!!) Emergent Order:



Highlights:

  • "The export-import bank has been a fixture in Washington for over 80 years, since FDR, do you REALLY want to turn your back on tradition?!?"
  • "Wow, it's been here longer than Harry Reid!"
    • Personal Note: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
  • It's given a helping handout to great American companies like Enron, Solyndra, and Boeing.
  • "Those loans are actually subsidies for big corporations....backed by taxpayers!!!"
  • "All this stuff can be confusing, that why the Kronies to help legislators like you make the right choice!"

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Conservative Case for Pot Legalization

This BlazeTV segment from late last month hits the nail on the head: 

Highlights:

  • The controlled Substances Act rests on the foundation of Wickard v. Filbrun.
  • Tancredo nails the Nanny State Aspect; marijuana prohibition is based on the same logic as Michael Bloomberg's soda ban.
  • Amy Holmes is right about Medical; Medical Marijuana is a corrupt scam.
  • Just because you remove prohibition at the federal level does not mean states couldn't continue to prohibit it at the state level.
  • My 2 cents: Marijuana prohibition was enacted in 1937, under Franklin Roosevelt; that should tell Conservatives everything you need to know about this type of Nanny Statism.
  • Another 2 cents: Unlike drunkenness, which the Bible condemns over and over and over again, the Bible is silent on the topic of marijuana.
  • From a Christian perspective, Pat Robertson nails it....

Subscribe to theBlazeTV here.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Vladimir Putin's Utter Contempt for Barack Obama

Yesterday, I wrote about the intersection of current events in the Mediterranean and Biblical Prophesy.  I stand by what I said.  I do, however, want to accompany that analysis with a comment on Earthly Geopolitics.

In late March, Barack Obama asked Dimitri Medvedev for 'space' until after the upcoming election when he would have more 'flexibility' to address Moscow's concerns.  Vladimir Putin responded by sending Russian Marines to undermine Barack Obama's farce of a Syria policy.  This reveals everything you need to know about Barack Obama's pathetic performance as Commander-in-Chief.

Barack Obama's vaunted 'reset' with Vladimir Putin might be the biggest policy failure of Barack Obama's administration.  I say that fully aware of the Debt and Obamacare.  Barack Obama has surrendered everything to Moscow and gotten nothing in return.

Barack Obama, much like Franklin Roosevelt at Yalta, surrendered Eastern Europe to Moscow.  In return, Moscow helped Iran accelerate its nuclear program.  Under Barack Obama's watch, Vladimir Putin (with Iran) is also selling Hugo Chavez missiles that can hit the United States.

If this is Biblical prophesy, then so be it.  Scripture is quite clear, however, that we don't know when the End is going to occur.  In the meantime, however, Barack Obama's Foreign Policy has been catastrophic for the United States.  From Libya, to Egypt, to Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Latin America Barack Obama has made the United States a Global Laughingstock (and he lied about bin Laden).  Vladimir Putin's contempt over Syria is par for the course.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Franklin Roosevelt: A Monstrous Liar

Franklin Roosevelt: A Monstrous Liar

In a recent debate, when Governor Rick Perry described Social Security as “A Monstrous Lie,” he was right on a deeper level than he intended. Social Security’s financial difficulties are the logical consequence of its corrupt foundation. Social Security is a welfare transfer, not insurance, and Franklin Roosevelt lied when he said otherwise. Franklin Roosevelt also knew that government clients are reliable Democrats, so he deliberately designed Social Security to turn seniors into a dependent underclass. In order to solve this problem, it must first be properly defined, because different definitions lead to radically different solutions. Today, well-intentioned reformers, led by Congressman Paul Ryan, are boxing themselves in. Americans should not restructure Social Security until we justify its continued existence. Given Social Security’s morally bankrupt foundation, this is impossible. Americans should therefore dismantle Social Security, not save it.

In a January 1935 address, Franklin Roosevelt called on Congress to create “compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-sufficient system for those now young and for future generations.” When Franklin Roosevelt said that, he was consciously lying. Social Security has never been a “contributory annuity” to which an investor could stake a legal claim; the Supreme Court confirmed this in the 1960 case Nestor v. Fleming. Social Security has always been a welfare transfer from productive citizens to government clients. Franklin Roosevelt knew he was lying. Shortly before his January 1935 speech, Franklin Roosevelt confided to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins that Social Security was “the same old dole under another name. It [was] almost dishonest to build up an accumulated deficit for the Congress of the United States to meet in 1980.” Social Security first went bankrupt in 1983.

Franklin Roosevelt’s web of lies was never sustainable. Transfer payments are always welfare; they forcibly confiscate the property of one citizen and redistribute it to the politically favored. In so doing, they inevitably become vote-buying operations. Transfer payments create a structural imbalance where government clients vote into office politicians who ratchet up benefits while productive citizens are too busy to stop them. This misalignment of incentives is why Social Security’s financing so closely resembles a Ponzi scheme; eventually the Golden Goose always dies. Making matters worse, payroll taxes raise the cost of employing citizens by creating an artificial “wedge” between an employee’s take home pay and that employee’s cost to his employer. Social Security is worse than a Ponzi scheme; while the financing is identical and both destroy jobs, no one went to prison for refusing to participate in Bernie Madoff’s far less monstrous lie.

Focusing on the foundational corruption of Social Security, instead of myopically obsessing over financing, leads to radically different conclusions about what problem needs to be solved. Many similarities exist between the collapse of America's welfare state and the collapse of Soviet Communism; the differences are of degree, not kind. In this emerging debate, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, like former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, wants to preserve a corrupt system that deserves to die. Like Gorbachev, Congressman Ryan also wants to add trillions of new debt doing it. Post-Wall Street Bailout America can no longer afford to mask progressivism's economic symptoms; we need to address the core philosophical pathology. Congressman Ryan’s glasnost approach does more to subsidize Wall St than promote freedom; instead of a heavily regulated personal account, Americans should have the option to free ourselves from the Social Security system. The overwhelming majority of Americans under 30, and a substantial number of older citizens, will gladly renounce Social Security benefits in exchange for freedom from payroll tax tyranny.

Before discussing solutions to Social Security, Americans must properly define the problem. Social Security is built on a foundation of lies; it masks welfare and vote-buying in the illusion of insurance. President Obama’s callous attitude towards Social Security benefits during the debt ceiling debate demonstrates the tenuous, politically driven, nature of the corrupt status quo. Social Security's financial bankruptcy is a symptom of its moral bankruptcy; why should productive citizens subsidize government clients?!? Dependence transforms citizens into subjects; in a free society prosperous citizens will care for themselves. Social Security should be dismantled, not saved. Until Americans understand and acknowledge that the monstrous lie behind Americas collapsing welfare state extends far deeper than its financing, we cannot make Washington D.C. truly inconsequential in our lives.

The Author is a 30 year old Tea Party Activist in Austin, TX; he voted for Governor Perry twice last year