Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Trump's first 100 days don't hold a candle to FDR's bank holiday and gold nationalization

When we look back at President Trump's first 100 days on Saturday, April 29th (this author's birthday by the way), the pundits will have a field day trying to decide whether they were productive, pathetic, or just mediocre.  But the fact of the matter is the 100 day determination of a new President is nothing more than political theater because as with all comparisons they must be done in relation to an individual in the same office, and under circumstances of a similar note.

Image result for fdr first 100 days gold nationalization
Everyone observing politics seems to agree on two things about a president’s first 100 days in office: 
1. 100 days is a meaningless, arbitrary marker for a president’s performance that is likely to be more misleading than useful.
and… 
2. Let’s treat it like it is important! Reeeeeeee! 
The thing that fascinates me the most about this situation is that the so-called “pro-science” people are giving Trump low grades for his first 100 days. 
Allow me to connect some dots. 
In science, you don’t have much of an experiment unless you have a control case for comparison. For example, you can’t know if a drug helped with a particular disease unless you study the people who didn’t take the drug at the same time as those who did. 
But the pro-science people forget this concept when thinking about politics. Where is the control case for Trump’s first 100 days? 
Is it George Washington’s first 100 days? 
Is it Jimmy Carter’s first 100 days? 
And which prior president came to office in 2017 with identical problems and the most polarized political environment in history? - Scott Adams
The first 100 days concept came out of President Franklin Roosevelt's first term in office where he attempted to pass a bold agenda to try to put a tourniquet on the hemorrhaging economy, and then attempt to restart it with a series of socialist government programs.  And like the way Congress has snuffed out most of Trump's attempts to push through his agenda, so too did the Supreme Court do the same for FDR as he sought to re-shape the nation into a socialistic or communistic oligarchy.

Yet more importantly, can we say that the Standard's (FDR's) 100 days were successful?  Ironically they were in the same way Trump's could be said to be successful in that they both changed the mindset of Americans into realizing that there may be hope from each one's respective administrations.

1.  FDR - Fireside chats - The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

2.  Trump - Consumer confidence soars to a 15 year high.

However, there are two vastly important things FDR did in his first 100 days that shaped the future for the banking and monetary systems... and neither were good.  First, he called for a bank holiday in which he ordered the shutdown of every financial institution for at least a week, and summarily broke into everyone's safety deposit boxes to nationalize any gold they owned or had.  Secondly he issued an Executive Order making ownership of gold illegal, and under the threat of imprisonment, ordered anyone who still had some outside the banks to turn it in.

Lastly he secretly forced all banks to register under the Federal Reserve system, and there were many which never re-opened because they refused to follow this demand.

So if we are to compare the current President's first 100 days with another Commander-in-Chief residing in the Oval Office under relatively similar circumstances, we can almost say that Donald Trump was world's better than FDR when it came to banking and the nation's monetary system since he not only cut taxes for a large portion of the population by removing the Obamacare mandate, but he also has seen the stock market soar to record highs despite his 'approval rating' being one of the worst in the polls of the mainstream over the past 70 years.

0 comments:

Post a Comment