2 ms·
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 "massiv
by 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 agoThe 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 agoFair 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.