PDA

View Full Version : Hoover was NOT laisezz-faire; he increased spending far moreso then Roosevelt did


Rockingham, AH Deist
3rd July 2010, 09:10 PM
Just wanting to drive a stake through that enduring leftwing myth that laizess-faire policies caused the great depression with this graph showing US public spending as a proportion of GNP:)

As you will see following the recession that followed the war Harding cut public spending and taxation, which was followed by recovery and golden years. Now obviously correlation doesn't [always] equal causation, but those lefties whom proclaim the New Deal to have ended the depression never cared about that.

More importantly, those lefties are fundamentally wrong in their claim that Hoover destroyed the economy through laisezz-faire policies and Roosevelt fixed it through big spending. As you will see in the graph, Hoover actually DOUBLED government spending-whereas it spending jerked up and down but didn't increase an awful lot(about 10%, to my eye) under FDR.

In other words, Hoover was an economic leftwinger- Big spending, tariffs etc. FDR, on the other hand, was comparitively conservative in economic terms.

Quoting Hoover in 1932:

Two courses were open to us. We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead, we met the situation with proposals to private business and to the Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put that program in action. No Government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times. . . . For the first time in the history of depressions, dividends and profits and the cost of living have been reduced before wages have been sacrificed. (Hoover's acceptance speech, 11 August 1932)

autumn1971
3rd July 2010, 11:00 PM
Dude, your graph shows, I assume (it is not very well-labeled), the ratio of government spending to GNP on the y-axis versus time on the x-axis.
Your ability to make a statement like, "Hoover actually DOUBLED government spending," is puzzling. Given that the policies of Harding led to a massive crash in the GNP, government spending v. GNP would skyrocket even if there had been a modest reduction in government spending.
How are tariffs "left-wing", exactly? Most primary producers in the US would favor tariffs in order to keep the price of their product high -- not exactly populist.
Hoover was reviled, but I really need to ask what modern historians or economists, left or right, think that he was "laissez-faire," as I thought that the opinion was that he failed in his term to correct things, but that many of the seeds of the New Deal were due to Hoover.

Fnord
3rd July 2010, 11:04 PM
News Flash: The war is over. The good guys won. We can all go home now.

Gazpacho
5th July 2010, 01:41 PM
As autumn points out, normalizing Hoover's spending this way amounts to propaganda.

It's true that Hoover considered himself an opponent of laissez-faire, as he explained in his book American Individualism written before the presidency. His point of reference for "laissez-faire" was some time in the late 1800s when people like Jay Gould and the Vanderbilts had free run.

It's also true that he increased spending and lending during the depression. Most of the spending was for public building projects that, admittedly, provided some work, but not nearly enough. The loans, which kicked in during 1932, were largely in the form of business bailouts.

The version of history that has Hoover working behind the scenes during 1930 and 1931, doing everything in his power to avoid a catastrophe, comes belatedly from Hoover himself. There's not much evidence for it. I've read most of Hoover's public speeches during the presidency. In speech after speech, he was on the side of government restraint and leaving the country to work its way out.

The basic problem was that (much like he would claim of Andrew Mellon) Hoover did not "get" poverty in America. Yes, I know he was an orphan at 11 and his supporters never tired of repeating it. He still had gifts thrown his way that many people do not, namely a prosperous uncle who volunteered to raise him and a tuition-free college education. These gifts had a lasting impact on his perception of class, and why poor people are poor, and what they need to not be poor. He didn't get it at all.