Originally Posted by MtnGoat
The OP angle is really interesting. As I noted, first it punctures the classical, and always completely false, notion that Hoover was a 'do nothing' president. He intervened everywhere he could using most of the notions we are told today must be done...protectionism, public spending, etc.
Then, it proceeds to complain that the right has drifted far from Hoover...as if moving away from actions making the depression even worse is a bad direction to go.
I can't figure out the intent of starting this line of argument. It admits Hoover was far from do nothing, the fact is his actions fixed nothing and indeed made it all worse, and after ceding the false ground of Hoover as a do nothing, complains Republicans won't engage in undertaking flawed actions?
You can't figure out the OP because you are looking only for fault with a particular ideology. Hoover's actions did lessen the immediate impact of the 1929 crash but, the global depression began in earnest after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was enacted in January, 1930 and caused U.S. international trade to fall by 50%. Senator Reed Smoot (R-UT) was an Apostle in the Mormon Church. Congressman Willis Hawley (R-OR) was a former Willamatte University president.
FDR continued his New Deal programs but never gave up on trying to balance the budget. Many (most) economists say the recession was prolonged by NOT spending enough money to fully revive the economy until our entry into WWII necessitated it.
My intent was to draw on similarities between the 1930s and today. Austerity is not the solution. Neither is the Mormon Church.