Originally Posted by B-hoop
Just read about it, Hoover did the minimum he could because it was against his laissez-faire principles. Thats why he didn't win his reelection, people were tired of waiting for the economy to get better on its own.
FDR when elected then started to apply keinesian policies to try and solve the problem..
It's a myth that Hoover was a laissez-faire guy, and it befuddles me that people actually believe it. As President, Hoover himself didn't even pretend
to be a market supporter. But nowadays he gets that label. It makes no sense.
Does this sound like a free market guy to you? From Hoover himself:
We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action…. No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times…. For the first time in the history of depression, dividends, profits, and the cost of living, have been reduced before wages have suffered…. They were maintained until the cost of living had decreased and the profits had practically vanished. They are now the highest real wages in the world.
Creating new jobs and giving to the whole system a new breath of life; nothing has ever been devised in our history which has done more for … "the common run of men and women." Some of the reactionary economists urged that we should allow the liquidation to take its course until we had found bottom…. We determined that we would not follow the advice of the bitter-end liquidationists and see the whole body of debtors of the United States brought to bankruptcy and the savings of our people brought to destruction.
Read this great article from historian/economist Murray Rothbard on the Herbert Hoover administration. You'll learn more reading this article than you did in all of 8th grade social studies, I'd wager: