Paul Krugman has been rubbishing the idea of “austerity” (not a helpful term, what about “responsibility”) and pointing the finger at President Hoover as the kind of person who would have opted for “austerity”. Steve Horwitz explains that Hoover was actually the father of the New Deal.
Late in both of their lives, Tugwell wrote to Moley and said of Hoover, “we were too hard on a man who really invented most of the devices we used.” Roosevelt’s inner circle would have every reason to disassociate themselves with the policies of their predecessor, yet two of them recognized quite clearly Hoover’s role as the father of the New Deal.
You’d have to be pretty freaking ignorant of the US and its history not to know that li’l fact.
krugman – banal bloviating boxhead.
Rabz
21 Feb 12 at 8:52 am
yeah very ignorant.
In 1930 He ran a surplus. In the initial year of the Depression the budget was contractionary.
The budgets of the next two years were moderately expansionary however omitted was the rise in interest rates (real rates rose more) and the biggest expenditure measure was imposed on Hoover because he could not veto it.
His last budget was contractionary . This saw the major effects on the income tax act of 1932 take place.
Does anyone here actually read about the topic they are writing about.
On your Marx
21 Feb 12 at 9:41 am
Perhaps you should have read the article.
Rabz
21 Feb 12 at 9:53 am
Clean up on aisle 3 Homer.
.
21 Feb 12 at 12:25 pm
Gosh, I wouldn’t be boasting about being the father of the New Deal; it was a disaster that prolonged the depression conditions in the US. Most countries, including Australia, emerged from depression many years before the US.
And yes, on your Marx, I have read widely on this topic and most of the measures of the New Deal were just bizarre and counterproductive, particularly the NRA and the promotion of useless cooperatives that all failed. Lifting wages and giving unions legal powers – entirely the wrong direction. I particularly loved FDR ordering all the piglets to be killed in order to drive up the price of pork!!!
So if I were a relative of Hoover, I would be very happy with the historical disassociation between Hoover and the New Deal.
Judith Sloan
21 Feb 12 at 12:27 pm
The new deal stunk because it failed the scratch and sniff test of economics – it basically went against the production function; Y = f(K, L, A, T, a….)
Anything that does purport to increase output by reducing the factors of production is a false theory.
.
21 Feb 12 at 12:32 pm
Wow did you read Keynes open letter to Roosevelt? you should have because you have missed the worst policy of the new deal.
No Rabz that is not a good measure.
You look at something called the cyclically adjusted budget deficit. This is quite an elemnetary start.
It was actually quite small something that the Romers for one have written about.
The economy actually rises after the larger rise in the CA budget deficit in 1933. This is made easier by the Fed not having to having to defend the Gold Standard.
It is also noteworthy that even though they increased the money base considerably M3 shrunk until inflation made monetary policy useful and working again.
Again it would be useful if people didn’t actually boast but instead they have shown they have read about the subject and understand it.
There wouldn’t be so many errors.
On your Marx
21 Feb 12 at 1:29 pm