This history professor says that the champion’s of Hoover-style free market policies are suddenly losing ground to the advocates of FDR-style intervention.
I don’t know, you read an article like and have no idea where to begin.
At no time in my lifetime has Hoover somehow been regarded as a genius for his handling on of the onset of the crisis – then there is also the strangely overlooked fact that Hoover was a New Dealer in every way that matters, with FDR continuing his same policies on a larger scale and thereby extending the downturn throughout the decade.
Truly exasperating.
{ 11 comments }
This is a piece of propaganda that subtly mentions Mises in the same sentence as Milton Friedman and free market economics. It is deliberately trying to link Hoover to the free market and then to link the free market to Mises so lies can be fabricated and amplified when the anti-capitalist slander by the unConstitutional coup kicks in.
Hoover was an ego-driven interventionist of gigantic proportions. I am 40 miles from the Hoover Presidential Library in Iowa and there is nothing further from the truth – that Hoover somehow represents a free market President. This is not true and it is a pathetic propagandistic ploy.
Herbert Hoover was an interventionist of the highest magnitude and it is not possible to make any link between him and the philosophy of free market economics.
I agree with Bruce above. It’s all or nothing. They absolutely positively must make people think this economic disaster is a failure of the free market instead of the federal reserve. As our currency inflates out of existence, the federal reserve must be beyond reproach at all costs. And since they have the power to print up money, I mean literally – “at all costs”.
I also find it concerning that the board of economists has declared that the recession started in Q4 of 07 BEFORE the government spending and fed actions took place. They did this in spite of the fact that GDP was positive until Q3 of 08.
It is my opinion that it is a deliberate attempt to rewrite history. They need history books to show that the recession started BEFORE government spending and fed inflationary policies while the truth was that GDP began to contract AFTER keynesian/monetarist stimulus.
Now when the Obama administration steps in with more government spending and we reach a depression, people like Paul Krugman will blame it on Bush for not acting fast enough. As the depression deepens they will then praise Obama for all of his stimulus but go on to say that he should have spent more.
Notice how you can easily substitute Hoover for Bush and FDR for Obama and we will find that we have learned nothing from history.
I also find it concerning that the board of economists has declared that the recession started in Q4 of 07 BEFORE the government spending and fed actions took place. They did this in spite of the fact that GDP was positive until Q3 of 08.
It is my opinion that it is a deliberate attempt to rewrite history. They need history books to show that the recession started BEFORE government spending and fed inflationary policies while the truth was that GDP began to contract AFTER keynesian/monetarist stimulus.
Now when the Obama administration steps in with more government spending and we reach a depression, people like Paul Krugman will blame it on Bush for not acting fast enough. As the depression deepens they will then praise Obama for all of his stimulus but go on to say that he should have spent more.
Notice how you can easily substitute Hoover for Bush and FDR for Obama and we will find that we have learned nothing from history.
The funny thing is that FDR campaigned on a platform that was distinctly anti “New Deal”, which included such things as sound money, restrained govt spending etc – the very things that Hoover disregarded.
From that fantastic piece of writing: “They turned, instead, to the writings of market-oriented theorists such as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman.”
Two out of three ain’t bad; then again, nor is it good. I, too, agree with Mr. Koerber.
Someone should send this article to the Chair of that school’s history department.
Wow. If I was a high school teacher and a kid turned that in, I’d give him an ‘F’. Let alone a college professor….
This is beyond pathetic.
Jeff, the NYT has an column that indicates that federal stimulus might not work, but nevertheless closes on a note that federal-private “symbisis” somehow sounds like the right policy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/weekinreview/21uchitelle.html?ref=weekinreview
The pathetic professors has it that CATO is publishing pro-Hoover stuff — but in fact CATO has anti-Hoover stuff like Alan Reynolds piece “The Hoover Analogy Fails”.
Here’s what you have — simply another professional leftist propagandist with tenure.
“Here’s what you have — simply another professional leftist propagandist with tenure.”
Ah, but there have been rare exceptions to the general rule. One that stands out perhaps more than any other is Dr. Norman G. Finkelstein, whose career was ruined — not for his collectivist ideology, of course, or his scholarship (which is exceptional, btw), but for his ethical and practically irrefutable opposition to (you guessed it) the state (Zionist Israel, in particular). Imagine that.
Here’s the link to my critique of the Herbert Hoover analogy:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9671
Comments on this entry are closed.