Unlike Hitler, Hirohito, and Mussolini, FDR was the leader of a Republic rather than a dictator so he could not hope to implement such a plan without getting the People to agree. He had enough trouble getting the US into the war in the first place. If it were not for Pearl it is possible the US would not have entered the war for quite some time, if at all. I cannot fathom what it would have taken to justify empire building in Europe or what it would have taken to motivate the people of the US to undertake such an action. It seems unlikely in the extreme that FDR would have had any illusion that he could set the US on such a course without the threat of something even more terrible than the Third Reich.

Even if FDR wanted to take over Europe there is no way the people of the US would have supported that kind of unprovoked aggression, especially against former allies. We went to war to liberate, not to dominate. The moment that changed public opinion would have put an end to the war over night.

By 1945 the US was war weary and worried that the Soviet Union was going to try and expand into Europe which is a major reason Truman dropped \"The Bomb\" on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This saved thousands of US lives by preventing the invasion of mainland Japan but it saved far more lives by sending a clear message to Stalin about what would happen if he tried to take over Europe.

The US has never wanted to rule the world. We\’re Capitalists not Imperialists

I keep hearing about the \"free market\" and those are friendly words. They are warm and soothing and they seem to invoke the founding beliefs of this nation – liberty.

If big business could be trusted to hold these beliefs as dear as those that have fought and died to protect them then a true \"free market\" as envisioned by Smith and others might be realized. However the voice of tyranny does not only echo in the halls of our government; It is every bit as loud in the board rooms of corporations.

A larger economy means more wealth for everyone, not just the upper class so it is in everyone’s best interest if they “share the wealth.” This isn’t a “liberal” idea; It is an economic axiom as well as a Libertarian mandate. Economic tyranny is no more palatable than governmental tyranny and we shouldn’t be willing to trade one master for another under the guise of the “Free Market.”

Smith himself warns of the dangers of excessive greed and monopolies in a free market.

We can look to the lessons learned when the \"Robber Barons\" were using the \"free market\" to financially enslave men in service to their own unmitigated and unrepentant greed.

It isn\’t until The People demanded laws that ensured a fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work, created anti-trust and other laws (championed by T. Roosevelt) that made unfair business practices illegal that these economic oppressors were toppled. Not only to the benefit of the workers but to the benefit of the nation, the “free market”, and the corporations themselves

By wresting control of the market from a handful of rich businessmen the average citizen was able to take part in the “free market” and this expanded the economy by creating new wealth due to increased demand.

A true “free market” needs wealth to be circulated not concentrated. This is why the US economy started growing so fast in the 20th century. People were no longer working to make Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan rich, they were working to make themselves rich and self-interest is what drives the market (AKA “The American Dream.” JFK understood this. Regan understood this. That’s why they cut taxes. It doesn’t matter where wealth pools regardless of if it the bank accounts of the super rich or government coffers, if it isn’t being spent it is stagnant and this shrinks the economy.

This isn’t to say that government intervention is a panacea but a completely laissez faire market relying on businesses to act selflessly in the best interest of the market rather than selfishly forwarding the corporate agenda isn’t realistic.

When businesses come up with new ways to unbalance the market it is the responsibility of government to take measures that return it to equilibrium so we’re all motivated to work, buy, and invest rather than a handful at the top of the economic pyramid. The larger the pyramid the higher the apex that’s why Bill Gates is richer than any of the Robber Barons could ever dream of. By the end of WWII the US was out producing the rest of the world – combined. That’s the power of a free market in equilibrium.

With this in mind the “Roaring 20’s” were financed by businessmen and bankers offering loans to Germany to pay war debt imposed by Versailles. While the Mark was strong everything was okay but as the Mark was devalued it became bad debt and this contributed to the collapse of the banking industry and fostered the Great Depression.

As Mr. Horsecroft so aptly points out, this is essentially what happened in regard to the housing industry prior to our current economic meltdown.

Greed runs the market. Excessive greed ruins the market.

2. \"The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) was created in 1970 to expand the secondary market for mortgages in the US. Along with other GSEs, Freddie Mac buys mortgages on the secondary market, pools them, and sells them as mortgage-backed securities to investors on the open market.\"

(1 and 2 from Wikipedia articles)

3. “In the 1970’s, regulators and consumer groups argued borrowers in certain communities had no meaningful access to credit. Lenders were accused of red-lining if they were not servicing certain communities, based upon a perceived practice of drawing red lines on maps around areas for which they would not make loans. With the evolution of the sub-prime mortgage market in the 1990’s, credit was greatly expanded to riskier borrowers in certain areas.” Source: http://www.hg.org/articles/article_1069.html.

4. Result of (1) and (2) above was that mortgages were sold as securities. OK when banks carefully checked credit-worthiness of customers before advancing money. Add (3) and the publicity given to lenders who did not give mortgages to all and sundry whether or not they could afford them, (see rest of the “hg” article), and lending banks quickly securitized mortgages, good or bad, and got rid of them as soon as possible.

5. With nobody worrying about the quality of the mortgages, and hence the resulting securities, banks and others accumulated potential time bombs. They have just gone off. Hence the crisis.

6. To answer “No thanks” the US government should never have got into the business at all, at best. At worst, it should have ensured that banks did not give mortgages to persons with little or no hope of paying them off if problems arose. With the reduction in potential ‘bad debts’ there would have been no need for the FIDC, and no crisis.

FDR and New Deal policy failed to end the Great Depression? What ended it then? WWII? ABSOLUTE government control of production, availability and pricing, a draft (forced labor, wage control, and one could even argue population control), food rationing… is that what stops Depressions? I don\’t think you want to go there. I certainly don\’t. Are you thinking through the implications of what you\’re saying or just repeating drivel from 1934?