3 ms·

Except Hoover didn't engage in either a massive or unprecedented spending. All his public pronouncements and actions show that he was concerned with keeping th

by jbooth 16y ago

Except Hoover didn't engage in either a massive or unprecedented spending. All his public pronouncements and actions show that he was concerned with keeping the budget close to balanced over stimulus, whereas FDR was the opposite. EDIT: Here you go: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year1929_0.html#usgs302 http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year1929_0.html#usgs302 Total federal spending went from 3.8 to 4.3 billion under Hoover over the 4 years from 1929,1930,1931,1932. Hopped to 5.1 billion in FDR's first budget. 15% is "increased spending", 3% is really not, in the context of rolling over a large institution, it's basically holding even or cutting a little. Far lower rate of increase under Hoover than under, say, Reagan. Hoover also lobbied for a big tax increase in 1931 to "balance the budget", and typically in economic contractions the states and municipalities cut spending, because they have to run balanced budgets by law most of the time. Also, the recent stimulus bill was over 1/3 tax cuts -- so it's not really like like they're spending more than the Iraq war. More fun with statistics.

hga 16y ago
"Except Hoover didn't engage in either a massive or unprecedented spending" Then I guess it's fortunate I said "massive and unprecedented intervention in the economy". As for "tax cuts", in Washington that's scored as spending, e.g. you can't in theory cut a tax (rate, of course D.C. ignores dynamic scoring) without making up for it elsewhere. When you apply the "money is fungible" rule and you're running an annual deficit, it comes out the same, either requires the same amount of money to be borrowed to cover it. Your last (now edited out) point is a bit off since the fight over interpretation of the Great Depression has been going on from the very beginning and looks to be without end. There was certainly a CW, after all the (political) victors write the history, but that doesn't mean it's The Truth. I don't remember your including Reagan's budgeting in your first draft, so I'll just point out that he was fighting and winning an existential war, something that didn't burden Hoover.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Even on intervention, what'd he do, he held the federal budget pretty stable, he did the Smoot Hawley tarriffs which were large but I wouldn't call them "massive" or "unprecedented".. What's the huge intervention? I see perhaps slightly more active than the typical President but, considering the massive and unprecedented circumstances, I don't see a whole ton of activity. Regarding the never-ending debate on the topic of Hoover vs FDR, sure, although I'd say the victory was well-earned, and that documented statistics on government spending are a pretty solid fact.
  - hga 16y ago
    The two big ones I'm somewhat familiar with are: "Jawboning": convincing companies to not decrease wages in the face of deflation, so they just went bankrupt instead. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#Great_Depression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#Great_Depression, first paragraph.) And then there's the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Finance_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Finance_Corporat... There's lots more although many not as consequential and unprecedented (i.e. excluding Smoot-Hawley and the massive tax rate increase), as a quick read of the first link will indicate.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Fair points, I could nitpick at those too but I can see where you're coming from. I guess I just see his actions as more "reactive" rather than "intervention". If the economy's falling apart, and the government's intertwined with it, then you're going to see some increased activity from the government.. I tend to differentiate between whether the person's running around sticking their thumb in various holes in the dike (Hoover) or rebuilding the whole dike (FDR). Subjective measurement, though, so YMMV.

by jbooth 16y ago

hga 16y ago

"Except Hoover didn't engage in either a massive or unprecedented spending" Then I guess it's fortunate I said "massive and unprecedented intervention in the economy". As for "tax cuts", in Washington that's scored as spending, e.g. you can't in theory cut a tax (rate, of course D.C. ignores dynamic scoring) without making up for it elsewhere. When you apply the "money is fungible" rule and you're running an annual deficit, it comes out the same, either requires the same amount of money to be borrowed to cover it. Your last (now edited out) point is a bit off since the fight over interpretation of the Great Depression has been going on from the very beginning and looks to be without end. There was certainly a CW, after all the (political) victors write the history, but that doesn't mean it's The Truth. I don't remember your including Reagan's budgeting in your first draft, so I'll just point out that he was fighting and winning an existential war, something that didn't burden Hoover.

jbooth 16y ago
Even on intervention, what'd he do, he held the federal budget pretty stable, he did the Smoot Hawley tarriffs which were large but I wouldn't call them "massive" or "unprecedented".. What's the huge intervention? I see perhaps slightly more active than the typical President but, considering the massive and unprecedented circumstances, I don't see a whole ton of activity. Regarding the never-ending debate on the topic of Hoover vs FDR, sure, although I'd say the victory was well-earned, and that documented statistics on government spending are a pretty solid fact.
- hga 16y ago
  The two big ones I'm somewhat familiar with are: "Jawboning": convincing companies to not decrease wages in the face of deflation, so they just went bankrupt instead. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#Great_Depression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#Great_Depression, first paragraph.) And then there's the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Finance_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Finance_Corporat... There's lots more although many not as consequential and unprecedented (i.e. excluding Smoot-Hawley and the massive tax rate increase), as a quick read of the first link will indicate.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Fair points, I could nitpick at those too but I can see where you're coming from. I guess I just see his actions as more "reactive" rather than "intervention". If the economy's falling apart, and the government's intertwined with it, then you're going to see some increased activity from the government.. I tend to differentiate between whether the person's running around sticking their thumb in various holes in the dike (Hoover) or rebuilding the whole dike (FDR). Subjective measurement, though, so YMMV.