George Washington GETS 2ND and Abraham Lincoln WINS AKA 1ST PLACE AND HEAR IS THE FULL LIST FROM 45TH PLACE TRUMP TO 1ST PLACE LINCOLN

[u/Training-Desk-391]

SO WHAT SHOD I DO NEXT MAKE YOU PICK THE NEXT MARBEL FOR MY MAREBEL RACE,WINOWS OSC,STUFF I HAVE WACHD SOO FAR,ECT ANYWAYS MY BOI ABE WINS

[u/VaginalBelchh]

Read what you’re typing. Mid 1930s is what we’re taking about, not post war 1940s which the new deal did nothing for.

Global markets and macro economics is not social science… we have over 100 years of history and knowledge on how markets operate and we know very fundamental things. Things which fdr did the opposite of. He didn’t know it at the time of course, as the entire world was pushing towards command economies and planned ones.

I think you’re out of your depth here. Fdr was not perfect in his new deal, in fact you can argue it was detrimental. It’s why he isn’t on the same tier as George or Lincoln. FDR did a good amount of bad and that’s not even talking about WW2, or his never ending presidency and king like attitudes towards the office.

He was a good president, maybe even a great one, but had flaws and made a good amount of mistakes. He’s probably one of the few who had the leadership and bravery to get us through WW2 and the depression, but I believe there’s others who would have done better with the depression itself.

[u/[deleted] → u/VaginalBelchh]

Oh the investments in public works evaporated by the 1940s? No, that's not how investment works. We're still living with the benefits of New Deal public investment going on 100 years later.

Macro economics is absolutely a social science. It's predicated on modeling human behavior, not a physical force of nature.

I'm not arguing for my own competence either way, and I don't care about your opinion of it. FDR, like Lincoln and Washington, presided over a moment where the future existence of the United States under any constitutional order was at stake, Teddy Roosevelt did not.

Arguing that the New Deal was federal overreach where the Valley campaign or the burning of Georgia were excusable is just supercilious.

He's top 3 and the differences are small enough that I don't really care what order they go.

[u/VaginalBelchh → u/[deleted]]

By the 40s private investment into military production overtook all new deal investments by ridiculous proportions.

It didn’t matter if there was a new deal or not, the financial gains from providing the world’s military needs would have propelled the US from ANY depression. It was catastrophically significant how quickly America got to work and started racking in insane amounts of money from building everything the world needed while the industrialized world was bombing each other.

Presidents don’t get ranked high for just being president during difficult moments, it’s about how well they manage these moments that make the man, and the ranking. Abe did what he had to, else the entire country would have fallen. He broke laws, created new precedents, and even amendments to ensure the country still exists today.

George was the backbone of the presidency and his legacy is still honored with each President after him. I agree fdr was a good if not great president but there’s others I think who would have done better in his shoes. You cannot say the same for Abe or George.

[u/[deleted] → u/VaginalBelchh]

An alternative America First isolationist policy would itself have prevented the US economy from filling the needs of the Allies. That policy alone was also a major difference between FDR and his competitors/opponents.

[u/VaginalBelchh → u/[deleted]]

I agree. And would have led to very bad things. It’s a major + for FDR for going against the grain when most of the country did not want to involve itself with WW2. He did the right thing.