Glenn Beck: The New Deal didn't work

Meltdown

By Thomas E Woods Jr


VOICE: The Glenn Beck program presents more truth behind America's march to socialism.

GLENN: Oh, yes. It's more of a quick trot to socialism. Barack Obama, do we have the audio? Barack Obama said this about the New Deal:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Some of the criticisms really are with the basic idea that government should intervene at all in this moment of crisis. You have some people very sincere who philosophically just think that government has no business interfering in the marketplace and in fact, several suggested that FDR was wrong to intervene back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago.

GLENN: Okay. Not really because I don't think anyone has ever gotten the truth on the New Deal. I know I didn't. And I want to preface this with, do your own homework. Do your own homework. That's what coming to Earth is really all about. That's what being born a human is all about. It's up to you to decide. It's up to you to do the work. So don't listen to me. I'm an uneducated or self-educated guy. I spent about two minutes in college. Couldn't afford it. Out. Didn't know anything. I was a deejay for most of my life and the didn't have any higher aspirations than that. And then September 11th changed me and I've been doing my homework. And I have to tell you, I read people who disagree with each other for a reason. I take the extreme views and I say, okay, let me get the two strongest arguments in the room together, and I do that through books. I have the library of a serial killer, but I do it -- I don't want straw man arguments. And the history of this country that I have learned, I still love this country. I still think that she is great but she's made some bad, bad moves. And the new deal is not being taught in school.

We have Thomas Woods on the phone. He's the author of Meltdown, a book that I read this weekend that I think is just a really good primer on how we got here. And one of my favorite lines in this book is, "To blame the Democrats for this meltdown is just flat out wrong." It's not just the Democrats. It's the Republicans. But that's even wrong. It's something much bigger than that. It is central planning and the Fed. And Thomas is with us now. Hi, Tom, how are you?

WOODS: Good morning. How are you, Glenn? Doing well, thanks.

GLENN: Thanks for being on the program. Here's what I would like you to do. Could you please show the stimulus package and show the government spending that happened with the new deal and show us the truth.

WOODS: Oh, sure. As you've suggested, with Obama seeming to be just simply shocked that anyone could dissent from, you know, what we were all taught in sixth grade about Franklin Roosevelt, I mean, he can't believe that people are fighting battles that Barack Obama thought had been won a long time ago. I think we're making progress when we make people like Barack Obama have to turn around and go back and fight all battles over again because these battles were won by the wrong people. So when you actually look at the evidence, you don't look at, you know, Franklin Roosevelt gave some sweet little speeches and he comforted everybody. When you look at the cold hard facts of the matter, from 1933 to 1940 unemployment averaged 18%. So that means the New Deal didn't work, period. And you can scream and shout and jump up and down but, you know, facts are stubborn things, as we know, and --

GLENN: Tell me about -- go ahead.

WOODS: No, I was going to say he tried pretty much everything that Obama's going to be trying. You know, he threw money at crazy projects, he hired people to, you know, essentially do the equivalent of digging trenches and then filling them back in again. He did all this and he did it year after year after year. And by the time you get to 1939, his treasury secretary was saying, "Well, let's see. We've spent more than we've ever spent before and yet unemployment is, well, by and large unchanged." By the late 1930s it had gone back up again. "And so all we have to show for this entire experiment is a whole lot more debt." And Japan has done the same thing in the 1990s. All they have to show for their stimulus is more debt. But somehow we're supposed to expect that this is the one time in world history that the stimulus package is going to work.

GLENN: Here's the thing. I asked Tom yesterday to write a piece for the free e-mail newsletter at GlennBeck.com. You can get that today in your e-mail and does it even have a name on it? Just, it doesn't. It's called Untitled by Tom woods.

WOODS: Yeah, I'm a very artistic person. All I could think is call it Untitled.

GLENN: You can get this and what it has in it is the beginning of the argument on FDR and the New Deal, and it has some of the facts and figures. And I have to tell you, if you know who Henry Morgenthau is, this is the treasury secretary. When did he become FDR's treasury secretary, Tom?

WOODS: I actually don't remember for sure.

GLENN: Okay. But he was best friends with Franklin Roosevelt. They used to say two of a kind about the two of them. In fact, I think FDR signed a picture of him to Henry that just said one of the two of the kind, something like that. They were best friends. For him to come out at the end and say -- and this is the exact quote -- we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent and it doesn't work. We have never made good on our promises. This is FDR's best friend and treasury secretary: "We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and now we also have an enormous debt to boot. That's a quote."

Now, where is the stat that shows that the New Deal worked?

WOODS: Yeah, the best they can do is try to fiddle around with the unemployment statistics. It's pathetic to watch. There was an argument not long ago on slate by a guy named David Sirota who's one of the so-called progressives. I don't know how the progressives got the name progressive because everything they called for would bring us back to the stone age if we actually listened to it. But Sirota again professed to be horrified that anybody out there could dissent on FDR and he said, look, most economists seemed to think the New Deal was a good thing. David, would these be the same economists who had no idea this crisis was coming, who thought the Fed should just inflate the money supply like crazy to stimulate the economy? Are you talking about those economists?

GLENN: Yes.

WOODS: Because I don't care really about those economists. And as far as the historians are concerned, if you want to find a group of people -- and I am a historian. I have a Ph.D. from Columbia. If you want to find a group of people on Earth who know less about economics than historians, good luck. You know, I mean, their analyses of the new deal when you actually pin them down with the statistics, they are reduced to saying, well, okay, maybe he didn't get the country you have the depression, but he gave us hope. I'm not kidding, that's the response, he gave us hope. Well, look, if you are down, let's say you fell into a well and somebody's saying, "Listen, I'm bringing a ladder. The guy with the ladder's almost here, the ladder's almost here," but there is no ladder and he's given you a lot of hope. But really what good is that to you when you're at the bottom of a well?

GLENN: The last thing I want to touch base on with you is something that is also in your piece in the free e-mail newsletter today and that is if you can't get Hoover right, you can't trust anything on FDR.

WOODS: Right.

GLENN: Hoover, can you just give me what you have in the newsletter today just on Hoover's public works?

WOODS: Yeah, Hoover's house in four years spent more on public works than had been spent on the previous 20.

GLENN: Wait a minute. Say that again, please.

WOODS: So Herbert Hoover, the supposed do-nothing president, spent more on public works projects in his four years than had been spent in the previous 20 and that's why he was called a spendthrift by FDR. And then on top of that he's making emergency loans to crummy companies, he's raising taxes and tariffs, he's forcing wages up at a time that prices are falling by 15%. So he's saying to businesses in a depression, give everybody a 15% raise. Oh, that will keep people in their jobs. You know, nice going. Look, over and over this -- he can't help himself.

GLENN: Tom, when you saw the president speak last night, what did you hear that you thought, okay, this is good. And what did you hear that you thought, "Oh, dear heavens, people don't know what this means."

WOODS: Well, Glenn, I need to make concessions to you. I need to have some solid piece in my life and so that means that I don't listen to official White House communications. I let my friend summarize them. But I mean, basically it's the same old Keynesian stuff, you know, just spend, spend, spend. And look, you know, I'm entitled as one of my friends says, I'm entitled to my trillion dollars the same way FDR was entitled to his money. I want my trillion to play with and how dare you dissent from this. And not long ago, maybe within the past week he was joking with his fellow Democrats that people were criticizing his stimulus bill as being a spending bill and he said, "Well, isn't that the point of a stimulus bill? Oh, how stupid these people are. Well, no, frankly I think what we're seeing is that Barack Obama, for all his rhetorical skill, you know, again knows as much about economics as my cat does. And my cat is not a particularly good economist. So the idea that we just throw money at arbitrary projects and the money is seized from individuals and that's supposed to make us wealthy, I mean, if you believe that, you either belong in a lunatic asylum or on the editorial page of the New York Times.

GLENN: Tom Woods, the newsletter has a copy of what he's talking about today with some of the facts on FDR, et cetera, et cetera. We have more on this later on in the program and also on tonight, and I'm going to show you somebody who I can guarantee you on mainstream television, you haven't seen this point of view on television tonight. Somebody who is a guy who all he does is look at trends, and he's been following the trends in the country and he will show you if we don't wake up and turn around what that trend is leading towards. Tonight, 5:00 on the Fox News Channel. More to come.

Glenn created "The Senate Fails to Condemn INFANTICIDE" in response to the Senate not passing Nebraska Senator Ben Sasses' bill banning infanticide early this year. In an effort to help support pro-life charities, Glenn first posted this for sale on eBay before being banned multiple times before we finally had enough and put it up for sale on bidpal.net.

At the time of this post, the bid was up to $4,700 — but we can do better than that. Please help us raise money for a good cause, you don't even have to display it anywhere in your home, you can just keep it in storage or something! If you want this priceless piece created by one of the most influential people in the world of art, place your bids here.

Can you remember the economic crisis of 2008 and how you felt when the news broke that Lehman Brothers had collapsed? I have found an economic threat that everyone needs to be aware of, so you can prepare yourself in case we see another 2008 type collapse. I am going to present the evidence to you and I urge you to verify everything and to form your own opinion.

What is that threat?

It is a bank called Deutsche Bank. They are by far the most dominant bank in Germany which is the world's fourth-largest economy. In 2018 they had €2.08 Trillion worth of assets and the second-placed bank (DZ Bank) had €506 Billion worth of assets. To show you how dominant this bank is, they have more assets than the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th sized banks combined.
When we review a business there are three key parts to analysis:

  • Market sentiment
  • Business numbers
  • Technical Analysis

Market Sentiment

Deutsche Bank has a long history of potential scandals including going all the way back to World War 2 and dealing in Nazi gold. Below are five recent stories which have increased the negative sentiment around Deutsche Bank.

  1. In 2007, they purchased a portfolio of loans worth $7.8 billion and purchased insurance from Warren Buffets Company. It was discovered they did not set aside enough capital to cover any potential losses. Over the course of the ten years, they lost $1.6 billion, and when they sold the loan they did not update their financial statements to include the big loss
  2. The Panama Papers are an ongoing investigation looking for many things including offshore tax havens. These investigations have resulted in several heads of state resigning including in Iceland and Pakistan. Last November, 170 police raided 6 different offices in Frankfurt looking for evidence of money laundering.
  3. Estonia is a small country in Eastern Europe. It has a population of 1.3 million people and a GDP of €26 billion. In January, it was discovered Deutsche Bank got involved with a Danish bank called Danke Bank and processed over $230 billion worth of cross country payments (including from Soviet Russia) through one bank in Estonia.
  4. There have been rumors of issues with Deutsche for a while now and one of the solutions put forth was a merger with a bank called CommerzBank. The leaders of both companies met and they even got support from politicians. In April, news broke that the merger talks had failed because over worries the risks and costs would be too great.
  5. Last week in France, Investment banking boss Garth Ritchie and others were arrested in France over illicit tax transactions.

Business Numbers

Deutsche Bank is already struggling as they are losing staff, losing market share, and bonuses are expected to be down at least 10% and further rounds of cost-cutting to come. Now imagine the impact if business costs start going up.

The banking industry works in a very simple way. They raise funds through large bonds at low-interest rates and then sell those funds to business and individuals thru products like loans and credit cards at a higher interest rate which results in a potential profit.

Earlier this year, Deutsche Bank tried raising money through several bonds. They paid 180bp (basis points) on a two-year bond and 230bp on a seven-year bond. Let me put this in context for you. There is a small bank in Spain called Caixabank which paid 225bp on a five-year bond and one of the larger banks in Spain, BBVA paid 130bp on a five-year bond.

  • How and why is a small bank in Spain getting a better deal on bonds than a huge bank in Germany?
  • Why is a large bank in Spain getting a bond 100bp cheaper than a German bank?
  • What does the market know that we do not?

Stock Price

Deutsche is also missing revenue projections which further hurt the business ability to survive and prosper. As you can imagine all of this news has a deep and lasting impact on its stock price which is in deep trouble. Before I share the stock price, I need to put this into the context of the market and the industry compared to the big economic crash of 2008. Below you will see a chart of some banking stocks from around the world with their peak price prior to the 2008 crash, the low of the 2008 recession and the price today:

As you can see from the above chart the banks in America have recovered from the 2008 recession by anywhere up 375% and JP Morgan has not only recovered its price in full but is constantly setting new high's. Ireland went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the EU/IMF following the 2008 crash and even our national bank has more than doubled its price since 2008. The worst performing bank I could find was Societe Generale which has issues but is still hovering around its 2008 low price levels.

Now let's put that into the context of Deutsche Bank. Not only has the stock not rebounded but it is over 65% below its 2008 low at $6.75.

Technical Analysis

When you are dealing with the stock market, you also have people who study pricing through technical analysis. Experts look at things like FIB sequences, trend lines, and support levels. Support levels are a key metric for a stock failing because are looking to find where it will find support and potentially bounce higher.

We are very close to a key support level ($6.40) and if the price goes below this level, there is no saying exactly how low the price could go. At least one company expects Deutsche to fall below this support level, as several weeks ago UBS downgraded the stock to a sell order. This news was compounded last Friday when rating agency Fitch, downgraded their credit rating to BBB or two levels above JUNK status.

Other Information

I know you are likely reading this and thinking "this bank must have smart people in charge and surely they have a plan, right?" I am sure there is a plan and while they have kept their cards close to their chest, they have spoken in the past about the areas they foresee having growth for the company – they include business in Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt. Do they strike you as countries which are stable and will offer steady and reliable growth? Do you have to think really hard to imagine how this could go potentially very wrong?

Questions

I believe there is at least a solid case Deutsche is in a LOT of trouble. So what are possible scenarios for the future? I will lay out the key questions below but I must stress that it's impossible to say for sure what exactly will happen. One of the key numbers to remember here is they have roughly €50 billion worth of derivatives.

  • How likely is it that the bank can turn things around and survive?
  • How likely is it the bank continues to run into trouble, its stock price fails and eventually fails?
  • If you think it is likely it will fail, the question becomes what will the fallout be? Who will be affected?
  • Will they be bailed out?
  • If so, by whom? The German government, ECB, IMF, the Federal Reserve?
  • What will the German government think? Some members recently spoke out saying they would block public money for the proposed merger? Will they block funds if it failed?
  • Will other banks be exposed and affected? Will they have to take losses?
  • Will those losses be spread around or will one or more bank be mainly affect?
  • Will this affect the sentiment of the banking sector and cause a panic?
  • If there are issues and it starts affecting the stock prices, what will be the impact on other industries?

Last Question

The last question revolves solely around the banks and the regulators? How secure are the other banks? We all hear about how banks are now put through "stress tests" but how much trust do you put in those results? How much trust do you have in the regulators?

I know this may make me sound like a conspiracy theorist to some but it's an honest question. The Fed is on public record saying they want to keep this economy strong as long as possible. If a bank did not perform strongly in a stress test or even barely failed one, do you think they would report it?

Can you imagine the pressure that body would come under to stay silent? Can you imagine the rhetoric they would face with questions like, "Are you really going to fail one bank? Do you know how many people will lose their jobs if you do that?" Am I saying this is happening? No, but can you really rule it out 100% as a possibility?

I urge you to ponder on these questions, do your own research and find YOUR answers.

Update: The most freaquently asked question I have received from this column / show is how much time do we have to prepare. This is an impossible question to answer, as it could fail tomorrow, next week or might be next year. However I want to provide you a potential date for your diary – July 24th. That is when Deutsche will release their next earnings report and if it comes in below expectations, it could cause a further drop in price casting more doubt over the future viability of the bank.

Please support Jonathon's weekly podcast which is exclusive to the Blaze Media and available for FREE. He offers a unique perspective by promoting America's Founding Principles and brings every issue back to a set of core principles which are always based around the laws of nature. You can find links to his show by clicking here or by searching for Freedoms Disciple on your favorite audio platform.

Survey: Where do you stand on these conspiracy theories?

Thought Catalog / Unsplash

Have you seen this survey on the most-believed conspiracy theories in America?

It's no surprise the survey has been getting so much attention. The results are actually a pretty disturbing.

Infographic: Belief in Conspiracy Theories in the United States | Statista

I decided to put together a quick survey of my own, with slightly different wording.

Up-vote the ones you agree with and down-vote the ones you disagree with.

I believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK alone. However, I would not be surprised to find out the government sealed evidence that others were involved.

If by "deep state" you mean long-time Washington power brokers who are used to calling the shots and now feel threatened by Donald Trump not listening to their advice or council — yes, I do believe that many people like that are working against him and his administration.

Whether alien bodies are in Area 51 or not, I do believe the government knows more about UFOs than they have told us.

I do not believe the U.S. government was involved in 9/11, but as we know, NSA advisor Sandy Berger was caught destroying documents from the national archives related to both Bush and Clinton. All U.S. administrations have been to close to the Saudis, and the Saudis were involved in 9/11 at some level.

I believe the climate is always changing — it's natural. I would be willing to accept that man MAY play a role in this. But I do not believe in the solutions currently being discussed, nor do I believe the intention of most political activists are pure.

Any talk of the Illuminati provides the true dangers to man's freedom — like very powerful NGOS and men like George Soros — a perfect cover.

The U.S. government has done some horrible experiments on people and land — I also suspect they will do more things in the future. But I do not believe in the systematic spraying of chemicals using chemtrails.

The moon landing was real, but I see a time coming when people will not be able to trust their eyes due to deep fakes.

What do you think?

Let me know in the comments section below.