Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
LOL! He is referring to the depression of 1921, not the Great Depression! That Depression has been coined by historians as the Forgotten Depression and is never talked about. Why? Because it was so swiftly resolved. What was the policy? Let the recession run its course.A fellow, Murray-Something gets cited about Herbert Hoover's lack of Laissez-Faire beliefs, based on two paragraphs from a self-describing--Quakers Do Not Do Self-Serving--speech in 1932. Then he launches into 1921.
Herbert Hoover's Depression by Murray N. Rothbard
Mainly, laissez-faire does not exist.
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Penn Quakers even worked with original indigenous peoples. Others intervened--in military uniforms--and shot them to death: Decade, after decade, after decade.)
I am not talking about Austrian economics, or if Hoover was right or wrong, or what he should have done. The issue I am discussing is the philosophy of Herbert Hoover. And his philosophy was big government. That is my premise.
The key thing to look at here is Herbert Hoover and FDR. Government spending under FDR was also less than today, but does that mean FDR was laissez faire? Of course not.
1. Hoover doubled government spending as percent of GDP.
In 1929, the first year of Hoover's term, spending as percent of GDP was 11%. By 1932, Hoover's last year, spending was 21%. In a period of 4 years, Hoover doubled government spending. That is a massive increase given how low it was before. In 1933, spending was 22%. Throughout the rest of FDR's prewar reign as President, spending as % of GDP was LESS than Herbert Hoover's spending levels in 1932. FDR sure was a laissez-faire man!
*http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html*
And that is soley on the issue of government spending. As I quoted earlier, Speaking before the 1932 Republican Convention, Hoover boasted that he had rejected the "disastrous" option of doing "nothing." The "do nothing" president? Really? It simply isn't true. And the sources I listed have many other references to the data you for some reason said is nonexistent.
2. Hoover doubled federal debt as percentage of GDP.
Here, to ensure I am not overestimating, I am using only federal debt, not local and state debt. In 1929, federal debt as percentage of GDP was 16%. By 1932, it was 33%, more than doubled.
Where exactly are you getting the data that hoover was a "laissez-faire" "do nothing" "small government" president? IMO he was one of the worst in history because he was just the opposite.
Provide your source. Hoover was president from 1929 to 1932. It appears the 1934 FDR actually spent less than Hoover in his last year.The budget outlays in 1930 were $3.3 bil. In 1931 the budget outlays were $3.6 bil. In 1932 the budget outlays were $4.7 bil. In 1934 the budget outlays were $4.6 bil. In 1935 the budget outlays were $6.5 bil.
Budgets doubling happened in the New Deal, not in the post-1929 Hoover Administration. The percentage of GDP doubled. GDP was going the way of the whirlies in the toilets.
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many scalps cleaned in Whirlies(?)! Hmmm!)
Provide your source. Hoover was president from 1929 to 1932. It appears the 1934 FDR actually spent less than Hoover in his last year.The budget outlays in 1930 were $3.3 bil. In 1931 the budget outlays were $3.6 bil. In 1932 the budget outlays were $4.7 bil. In 1934 the budget outlays were $4.6 bil. In 1935 the budget outlays were $6.5 bil.
Budgets doubling happened in the New Deal, not in the post-1929 Hoover Administration. The percentage of GDP doubled. GDP was going the way of the whirlies in the toilets.
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many scalps cleaned in Whirlies(?)! Hmmm!)
Hoover was president in 1931.OK, I see what you are getting at. I inferred too much.
I am not talking about Austrian economics, or if Hoover was right or wrong, or what he should have done. The issue I am discussing is the philosophy of Herbert Hoover. And his philosophy was big government. That is my premise.
The key thing to look at here is Herbert Hoover and FDR. Government spending under FDR was also less than today, but does that mean FDR was laissez faire? Of course not.
1. Hoover doubled government spending as percent of GDP.
In 1929, the first year of Hoover's term, spending as percent of GDP was 11%. By 1932, Hoover's last year, spending was 21%. In a period of 4 years, Hoover doubled government spending. That is a massive increase given how low it was before. In 1933, spending was 22%. Throughout the rest of FDR's prewar reign as President, spending as % of GDP was LESS than Herbert Hoover's spending levels in 1932. FDR sure was a laissez-faire man!
*http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html*
The reason why debt to GDP doubled was because GDP collapsed. Absolute spending only began to accelerate beyond trend in 1931.
Not only was he not a strict laissez-faire president as he is portrayed, he was the opposite. He was more interventionist than all the presidents before him. If Hoover would have preferred not to do something, it doesn't matter because he did. Hoover did not reduce government, he did not do nothing, and he did not lower taxes. He did the opposite. Politicians try to tell us otherwise, and they are dishonest liars.If you want argue that he wasn't a strict doctrinaire laissez-faire President, like the sources you are quoting, I would agree. Hoover was under intense pressure to do something, which was evident by the complete destruction he incurred at the polls in 1932.
I'm not sure if the source did or not.Provide your source. Hoover was president from 1929 to 1932. It appears the 1934 FDR actually spent less than Hoover in his last year.The budget outlays in 1930 were $3.3 bil. In 1931 the budget outlays were $3.6 bil. In 1932 the budget outlays were $4.7 bil. In 1934 the budget outlays were $4.6 bil. In 1935 the budget outlays were $6.5 bil.
Budgets doubling happened in the New Deal, not in the post-1929 Hoover Administration. The percentage of GDP doubled. GDP was going the way of the whirlies in the toilets.
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many scalps cleaned in Whirlies(?)! Hmmm!)
Are you adjusting for deflation when you compare the numbers? The real numbers show that FDR spent more than Hoover.
I'm not sure if the source did or not.Provide your source. Hoover was president from 1929 to 1932. It appears the 1934 FDR actually spent less than Hoover in his last year.
Are you adjusting for deflation when you compare the numbers? The real numbers show that FDR spent more than Hoover.
"In 1929, the first year of Hoover's term, spending as percent of GDP was 11%. By 1932, Hoover's last year, spending was 21%. In a period of 4 years, Hoover doubled government spending."
I have read articles on mises.org discussing the creation of the Federal Reserve. It is shocking that people ignore the issue and pretend like it is for our own good. Why would the largest bankers favor a central regulating bank? Because it was a deal for them at the expense of everyone else.I have been meaning to read that work of his, believe it or not. Rothbard has more intelligent things to say about economics than anyone in recent times.
Here is a great speech by him pointing out the fact the Federal Reserve was a creation pushed by the bankers, not by far sighted and enlightened government bureaucrats.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta7q1amDAN4]YouTube - ‪The Founding of the Federal Reserve | Murray N. Rothbard‬‏[/ame]
They were in favor of it because it would mean they could be subsidized by government at the expense of the tax payers. They were in favor of it because it largely removed the "loss" side of the "profit and loss" coin of free market capitalism.I have read articles on mises.org discussing the creation of the Federal Reserve. It is shocking that people ignore the issue and pretend like it is for our own good. Why would the largest bankers favor a central regulating bank? Because it was a deal for them at the expense of everyone else.Here is a great speech by him pointing out the fact the Federal Reserve was a creation pushed by the bankers, not by far sighted and enlightened government bureaucrats.
YouTube - ‪The Founding of the Federal Reserve | Murray N. Rothbard‬‏
They were in favor of it because J.P. Morgan didn't have enough money to continue acting as lender of last resort.
Subsidized by taxpayers? Please explain further.They were in favor of it because it would mean they could be subsidized by government at the expense of the tax payers. They were in favor of it because it largely removed the "loss" side of the "profit and loss" coin of free market capitalism.I have read articles on mises.org discussing the creation of the Federal Reserve. It is shocking that people ignore the issue and pretend like it is for our own good. Why would the largest bankers favor a central regulating bank? Because it was a deal for them at the expense of everyone else.
They were in favor of it because J.P. Morgan didn't have enough money to continue acting as lender of last resort.
Yes, subsidized. That is what lender of last resort means. If banks are in a pinch, the Federal Reserve will lend them whatever they need. Banks act irresponsibly, betting that they will be bailed out if they fail. And most of the time, they are. Bear Stearns was bailed out, as was much of wall street via TARP. Banks that do fail simply did not provide the government enough political incentive to save them. If government picks the winners, the winners will be those most in bed with government. The winners are those who are most corrupt.Subsidized by taxpayers? Please explain further.They were in favor of it because it would mean they could be subsidized by government at the expense of the tax payers. They were in favor of it because it largely removed the "loss" side of the "profit and loss" coin of free market capitalism.They were in favor of it because J.P. Morgan didn't have enough money to continue acting as lender of last resort.
Removed the loss side?
Is that what they did for Bear Stearns, Lehman, Countrywide, Wamu, Wachovia......?
How is that a taxpayer subsidy?Yes, subsidized. That is what lender of last resort means. If banks are in a pinch, the Federal Reserve will lend them whatever they need. Banks act irresponsibly, betting that they will be bailed out if they fail. And most of the time, they are. Bear Stearns was bailed out, as was much of wall street via TARP. Banks that do fail simply did not provide the government enough political incentive to save them. If government picks the winners, the winners will be those most in bed with government. The winners are those who are most corrupt.Subsidized by taxpayers? Please explain further.They were in favor of it because it would mean they could be subsidized by government at the expense of the tax payers. They were in favor of it because it largely removed the "loss" side of the "profit and loss" coin of free market capitalism.
Removed the loss side?
Is that what they did for Bear Stearns, Lehman, Countrywide, Wamu, Wachovia......?
No Herbert Hoover thread would be complete without a Hawley-Smoot Tariff shout-out.
As brain-dead as our Congress is, they haven't seen fit to fall into a protectionist frenzy as they did in 1930. The effect of Hawley-Smoot were massive retaliatory measures by foreign nations, and this when the US was as export-reliant as China is today.
Bank failure results when banks pursue bad business practices. It occurs when they fail to make profit. Bank failure is the "loss" side of the proft-loss mechanism in a free market. The Federal Reserve was created to bail out failing banks, functioning as the lender of last resort. This is no hidden purpose, it is stated. The Federal Reserve subsidizes the failure of bad banks that are politically tied to Washington or the Fed.How is that a taxpayer subsidy?Yes, subsidized. That is what lender of last resort means. If banks are in a pinch, the Federal Reserve will lend them whatever they need. Banks act irresponsibly, betting that they will be bailed out if they fail. And most of the time, they are. Bear Stearns was bailed out, as was much of wall street via TARP. Banks that do fail simply did not provide the government enough political incentive to save them. If government picks the winners, the winners will be those most in bed with government. The winners are those who are most corrupt.Subsidized by taxpayers? Please explain further.
Removed the loss side?
Is that what they did for Bear Stearns, Lehman, Countrywide, Wamu, Wachovia......?
Bear Stearns wasn't bailed out, they're gone.
Poor Jimmy Cayne lost $1 billion.
Does he feel bailed out? LOL!
They were gone before TARP was even imagined.
Now if you want to talk about Fannie and Freddie, they were definitely subsidized by the taxpayer.
