Posted on 05/14/2008 10:35:28 AM PDT by Born In America
“On the other hand, the Fed may have caused things, but it was Hoover and Roosevelt who instituted wage/price controls and other regulations that reduced rather than increasing business activity, thus making things worse.”
Most of the actions taken by the Fed and government after the stock market crash served to worsen matters. Maybe some of the make work programs did provide some people with an income, but that fed the mentality of government as provider in later years.
But it’s strange that the Fed’s action are not more widely discussed. Maybe this information is only now being accepted and making its way into the economic discussions. But I get very tired of the Smoot-Hawley card being played over and over. It was a minor, exacerbating factor, after the major causes of the GD were well under way.
McCain has even learned to say “Smoot-Hawley.”
“They kept reducing the money supply through 1936, while Hoover and Roosevelt were doing everything they could think of to restart the economy.”
It’s strange that a simple remark that came down from some older relatives to me so accurately described the Great Depression. They said” “Nobody had any money.” And they hit the nail on the head, whether or not they understood the technical reasons why nobody had any money.
>>Hoover and Roosevelt were doing everything they could think of to restart the economy.
How about “those two sets of idiots did everything they could think of to prolong the great depression” instead.
The cause of the Great Depression was national PTSD from the Civil War. The cause of the Civil War was that the idea leaders in the South and in the North as well trained in Greek ideals and Greek, and threw off the Hebrew that the founding generations had been schooled in.
Look at top marginal tax rates for the period....almost 100% for anything over 100,000.
Better to sit and do nothing rather than be an entrepeneur and try to make money for yourself , or to create jobs for other people.
Is anyone aware that the article Rush quoted from was written 12 years ago by a kid in the 10th grade?
Truth knows no age limits, what’s your point?
My point is Rush attacked and refuted the article as if it were an example of liberal dogmatic thinking. Really he was just attacking a high school kid. I think he can and should do better than that. There must be tons of papers from liberal economics professors he could be attacking and refuting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.