The Town Hall Archives

Disco Dan · Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:39 pm Post subject:

Ah, forgive me. I overlooked that, I thought you were still referring to Hoover the entire time, and was a bit confused because it seemed your post wasn't lining up accuratley with facts.

In a word: D'oh! *slaps self in head*

Jonathan · Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:22 pm Post subject:

Many historians say the FDR was responsible for pullin us out of it, I assume you disagree?

-Jonathan

Disco Dan · Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:26 pm Post subject:

Perhpas Jared does, I honestly can't say.

Jonathan · Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:49 pm Post subject:

Yeah, I was asking him (sorry, I wasn't clear).

-Jonathan

GusDeHaan · Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:24 am Post subject:

While my knowledge of American history is rather slim, I do know where it corresponds to Britain, or Canada. Here is a little bit of my "impressions" / "thoughts"

Assigning blame of economic issues to one person either in positive , or negative ligths, isn't my cup of tea. I think most of it has to do with the nature of individuals and their personal practices, such as buying EVERYTHING on credit, and in effect.. "lending" their buying power away.. And while hoover may have pushed the economy further down, he was only working out of the midset of the time and how the economy worked.

I cannot ask a prop plane piolet to fly a helecopter, or a space shuttle, Sure he may be able to "fake" it but he eventually will "mess" up..

I tell you what pulled the states out of depression , The war . It got people working, saving things for "the boys" and eventually created an economy that worked "without" money to allow for a reworking of a monetary system.

~*Darth Vader Girl*~ · Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:19 pm Post subject:

i don't really believe hoover was completely responsible for the depression
because one major problem was that people overinvested in the stock market and then it crashed and just about all the lifes savings were lost...hoover was not reelected after that in 1932 because people thought he was the problem (hence "hoovervilles") but there were a lot of other factors involved...so yes and no...but it wasn't completely his fault

Jared · Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:24 pm Post subject:

The Austrian economists would tell you that the business cycle is proof that we should do away with any idea of fiat money and central banking. I take a somewhat more moderate, Chicago School line, although I'm not entirely sure that I'm completely within either camp. It is, I think, highly impractical to return to using precious metals or other durable goods as a means of exchange.

The supply, divisibility, acceptability and relative stability of fiat paper make it a somewhat attractive option, despite its flaws, and it is hard to fathom a similar level of trade without it.

With this, though, comes the occasional bust. The government's proper course of action in such a situation is almost certainly to do just about nothing. The largest role of government in the market economy should be defining private property and enforcing legitimate claims of ownership, not bailing out the economy; the latter action tends to lead to a severe worsening of conditions.

By presiding over a system of the progressive era, championed by Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, which artificially inflated wage rates, and doing little to change this, Herbert Hoover deserves some of the blame for the ensuing depression, but as neither he nor Coolidge significantly worsened the problem, and indeed probably staunched the tide to some degree, it seems futile to blame them for the bust.

That recession, however, turned into a long depression because of government intervention (predominantly during the Franklin Roosevelt administration) meant to weaken its effect. By effectively delaying the full impact of the bust, the economic crises was worsened, as the market was prevented from returning to equilibrium. With the necessary normalization halted, the recovery was substantially offset, and indeed only came to fruition during the war years. Even then, the recovery was somewhat false, as the surge in spending was largely based on the U.S. government overdrawing and going deep into debt. War bonds and improving industrial efficiency after the war fortunately served to largely offset this and the nation's economy got back on track. No thanks, though, to Mr. Roosevelt, nor indeed to any president. (With scant few exceptions, American presidents have been abject failures in terms of understanding the market.)