Econlib Resources
Subscribe to EconLog
XML (Full articles)RDF (Excerpts) Feedburner (One-click subscriptions) Subscribe by author
Bryan CaplanDavid Henderson Garett Jones More
FAQ
(Instructions and more options)
|
TRACKBACKS (1 to date)
TrackBack URL: http://econlog.econlib.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1104
The author at PrestoPundit in a related article titled BUSH IS SOUNDING MORE LIKE HOOVER writes:
COMMENTS (14 to date)
Felix writes:
Bryan, did you mean for "21 items on Hoover's list of what he did right" to be "21 items on Hoover's list of what he said he did right"? Posted November 11, 2008 6:24 PM
James A. Donald writes:
And Bush is the John the Baptist of Obama Posted November 11, 2008 6:42 PM
dWj writes:
The folks who support a gold standard have their hearts in the right place, but you have to wonder whether even FDR didn't think, when he felt compelled to outlaw the possession of a completely harmless and generally innocuous metal, whether something wasn't kind of strange about the economic structure that would make that seem like an important thing to do. Posted November 11, 2008 7:23 PM
Jayson Virissimo writes:
Bryan, is there a good scholarly article documenting the public policy of Hoover that you could refer me to? This Hoover myth desperately needs to be exploded. I fear this misunderstanding of history has dire consequences for the present and future. Posted November 11, 2008 7:30 PM
CannedHeat writes:
I've always been under the impression that it was Coolidge that was the true laissez faire President and that Hoover was an engineer that flailed mightily and wrongly during the early part of the depression. Check the Wikipedia entry:..mining engineer..as Secretary of Commerce under Coolidge... he promoted government intervention under the rubric "economic modernization". He sounds like an inverterate tinkerer that couldn't leave anything alone. Also, note his support of prohibition. Libertarian this man was not. Posted November 11, 2008 9:30 PM
Bob Murphy writes:
Awesome post, Bryan. Do you know if Hoover really did do all these things? I mean, just the fact that he was claiming he did these things, is good enough to refute the stereotype. But what if a liberal die-hard said, "So what, the guy is a crook and a liar. He was making up stuff because FDR was beating him in the polls." ? Posted November 11, 2008 9:41 PM
Charlie writes:
To me you have lots of little policies, mostly bad mixed in with a couple of humongous policies. Since many (most?) macroeconomists since Milton Friedman think that the great depression was caused by the great monetary contraction from working to maintain the gold standard, and adding to that harm by managing counter-cyclical fiscal policies, is it so misleading he is remembered for that? Posted November 12, 2008 12:29 AM
Frank Howland writes:
Bryan, Do you have particular liberal historians in mind? I think it's quite possible that Hoover was more activist than the stereotype of him as President (almost everybody knows he was an activist during his war relief efforts), but his summary of what he did during an election campaign strikes me as rather weak evidence. It is colored by his retrospective effort to put his actions in the best possible light, given what had happened in the intervening disastrous months and years. I also think that the history of things like the Reconstruction Finance Corporation is very much worth investigating, especially in our current situation. Frank Posted November 12, 2008 9:17 AM
Lance writes:
I think the common conception is that Hoover did something, but it was far too little to be meaningful, and was far too out of touch to 'care'. This was exemplified by his interaction with the Bonus Army. Amity Shlaes in her 'The Forgotten Man' narrates the historical record of Hoover implementing public works programs, pressuring railroad executives to sustain construction, and so on. Posted November 12, 2008 10:19 AM
Bryan Caplan writes:
Jayson Virissimo writes:Other than Rothbard's work, none of which I'm aware. Posted November 12, 2008 10:31 AM
ionides writes:
Regarding documentation, George Reisman discusses Hoover's policies in "Capitalism". But relating this to Kling's Lecture 4 on macro: doesn't it appear that Kling is supporting the idea of keeping wages up during a depression? Posted November 12, 2008 1:15 PM
Brian Lee writes:
Until George W Bush came to his rescue, Herbert Hoover was widely regarded as the worst President of the last 100+ years. I have always thought this unfair to a man with many progressive instincts, who came to the presidency better qualified than most presidents - and who hit the worst luck of any president, perhaps ever. At the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, for example, Herbert Hoover was a champion of international economic cooperative efforts, including famine relief which he organised (saving millions of lives), and supporting J M Keynes in his opposition to excessive and counter-productive reparations demands against Germany. Read Markwell’s “Keynes and International Relations” on all this. Posted November 13, 2008 7:23 AM
Matthew Holbrook writes:
The first time I read this revisionist view of Hoover was in Paul Johnson's history "Modern Times," which used Rothbard for its analysis of Hoover and his depression policies. Regarding liberal historians, Arthur Sschlesinger provides the classic stereotype of Hoover as rugged individualist. See "The Crisis of the Old Order." I found it amusing when Schlesinger lets the cat out of the bag, and shows how much of an interventionist Hoover was: Yet the same man who could invoke the healing powers of nature and warn with passion against centralization could also, in another mood, boast of "the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic." For all his faith in individualism, he brought great areas of the economy - the banks, the railroads, the insurance companies, the farmers, even, toward the end, the unemployed - into the orbit of national action. No doubt, he entered on these programs grudingly, and did as little as he could to develop their possibilities. Yet he breached the walls of local responsibility as had no President in American history. (The Crisis of the Old Order, p. 246) This "grudging" interventionist increased federal spending such that by the time he left office it had doubled in size in terms of percent of GDP from where it was in 1929. Posted November 16, 2008 5:43 PM
Joseph Somsel writes:
Milton Friedman did a book on the monetary origins of the Depression that lays much of the blame on the Federal Reserve Board that deliberately REMOVED liquidity from the money supply. Supporting the gold standard didn't help either. Here's a book on Coolidge that sets the stage for Hoover although the author doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground when it comes to economics: http://www.amazon.com/Calvin-Coolidge-David-Greenberg/dp/0805069577/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229016890&sr=8-8 Posted December 11, 2008 12:04 PM
Comments for this entry
have been closed
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||