Nope.

Dave, it was Hoover that did all the damage. Roosevelt corrected all the mistakes Hoover was making. You should get your head out of Atlas Shrugged and read a real book every now and then.


How many books on economics have you actually read?

My guess is zero.

You're so quick to say "I'm a scientist!" as an appeal to authority whenever anything on steroids comes up, so where do you get this economic expertise? Or have you Walter Mittyed your way to being an economist, too?

How many debts have you actually paid?

My guess is zero.

Hard to blame Hoover for something that took years and years to happen, these things don't happen overnight.

I like FDR but I am not going to credit him from saving us from fascism, that wasn't going to happen. If anything having FDR as president almost caused a military coup headed by one of Cooperstown's favorite sons.

If I remember right the two big things that Hoover that did not help the situation was the tariff and the raising of the taxes across the board. But if I remember right Hoover raised most of the taxes to where they were before he cut them in the beginning of his presidency. Though he did also add some new ones as well.

But both "mistakes" happened after the damage had been done and the depression was a reality. At best it worsened or lengthened the depression but it did not cause it. By the time of Hoover's presidency something bad was going to happen, the pieces were already in place for it to happen.

it was Hoover that did all the damage. Roosevelt corrected all the mistakes Hoover was making.

Hoover had been in office just a few months when the stock market went into the toilet. Even if he had somehow forseen what was going to happen (and there's no reason to think he would), there wasn't much he could have done. Remember that the President didn't have nearly as much power at that point in time.

And frankly, Roosevelt's policies did little to get the country out of depression. The country languished in depression for the greater part of two of his terms before finally starting to come back out of it, and it's debatable as to how much effect Federal legislation had in that. What finally got the U.S. working again was World War II.

And frankly, Roosevelt's policies did little to get the country out of depression. The country languished in depression for the greater part of two of his terms before finally starting to come back out of it, and it's debatable as to how much effect Federal legislation had in that. What finally got the U.S. working again was World War II.

Right. So, a larger war between the US and China, likely started over their wanting us out of Pacific affairs, beginning around 2014 or so should get us out of this. Things will go badly for us at first until we start to make headway on the African front.

For the most part Presidents don't have the power to control the U.S. economy and they especially didn't have that power in the first 3/4ths of this countries history. Outside of a war FDR and any other president wasn't going to quickly turnaround the world economy much less the U.S. economy.

If a communist country with total "control" of its economy cannot run it effectively then most certainly an executive branch of a republic isn't going to be able wield enough control to run an economy either.

Hoover had been in office just a few months when the stock market went into the toilet.

True. But he came in on a platform of "more of the same" laissez faire economics that characterized the "Roaring Twenties". Therefore, he "contributed" by not foreseeing the trouble that was ahead and forestalling it with appropriate legislation.

And to answer Szym's challenge, I don't know how many books I've read on economics. Certainly more than 10. Galbraith's book on the 1929 collapse is excellent.

Galbraith's book on the 1929 collapse is excellent.

No wonder. Even Paul Krugman, as anti-libertarian as one can get, doesn't take Galbraith seriously.

IF Hoover by simply being in office and not somehow stopping something he had little power to stop "contributed", then FDR also contributed since he was Governor of NY when the market crashed and the depression began in the following months.

No wonder. Even Paul Krugman, as anti-libertarian as one can get, doesn't take Galbraith seriously.

Well, maybe he, and you, should start because the two of you are about to get a real world lesson in macroeconomics the likes of which you are not soon to forget.

But he came in on a platform of "more of the same" laissez faire economics that characterized the "Roaring Twenties".

Actually not. Hoover was very progressive for a Republican of the time in terms of economics (in fact, the Democrats tried to woo him in the early '20s). When he was Commerce secretary (under Harding and Coolidge), he worked hard to try to get more government involvement in economic affairs. Moreover, there was little difference between his platform on the economy and Al Smith's.

Now, Coolidge and Harding were more laissez-faire, so you can put some of the blame on them. But frankly, neither party was particularly interested in heavily regulating Wall Street during the 1920s. As long as it was working, politicians weren't about to upset the apple cart.

No wonder. Even Paul Krugman, as anti-libertarian as one can get, doesn't take Galbraith seriously.

Um, lots and lots and lots of people are less libertarian than Paul Krugman. Economics is a heavily libertarian discourse in America, taking a set of anthropological and sociological assumptions from 18th and 19th c. Anglo-American philosophy which are also the underpinnings of libertarianism. Krugman is a left-of-center economist, which leaves him far more libertarian than most of the rest of the world.

Actually not. Hoover was very progressive for a Republican of the time in terms of economics

And the key phrase is "for a republican".

Economics is a heavily libertarian discourse in America, taking a set of anthropological and sociological assumptions from 18th and 19th c. Anglo-American philosophy which are also the underpinnings of libertarianism.

The assumption that freedom is good? Bollocks to that!

I'm still laughing.

Well, you better get it all out now because you sure won't be when you're standing at the back end of a soup line.

The assumption that freedom exists previous to enculturation and can only be restricted by governments, the assumption of metaphysical rights including a right to property but not one to food or shelter or dignity, the idea of the hermetically-sealed individual as the basis of society and as usefully separable from the culture in which he or she lives, I could go on.

It's your philosophically ignorant understanding of freedom that I object to, of course, not to "freedom".

And the key phrase is "for a republican".

Did you read the rest of what I wrote? Hoover worked in the Wilson administration during World War I, working to feed Europeans displaced by the war and then later was in charge of the U.S. rationing system. He took heat from Republicans when he sent food to the Soviet Union after the war. All-in-all, he was probably closer on most issues to Democrats than Republicans.

It's your philosophically ignorant understanding of freedom that I object to, of course, not to "freedom".

In other words, you think some people should be forced to provide for others at gunpoint.