why is the American economy deteriorating?

[Brainteaserfan]

If a government prints money to pay it's debts surely this will weaken it's currency exchange rates even if it makes it look like they have more money .

I suppose you are talking to me.

 

It will devalue their currency, however it will effectively be a tax on everyone who holds their currency, instead of just those who live in their country.

 

If tony lives in the US, or whatever country does this, then they will be taking money from him if he holds that currency.

[TonyMcC]

wrong

 

Well, that's the shortest argument I've ever had lol.

More seriously, if you think my post #42 is wrong then you must think the premise that lies behind my statement is also "wrong".

As I see it in a democracy the government is elected by the People in order to run the country in accordance with the wishes of the People. This work necessitates the spending of money. If we discount the idea of printing money (which devalues all money in existence) the money needed must come from the People. If the money coming into the government's coffers and the money the government has to spend to meet the wishes of the People do not balance then I see only two sensible options for long term stability. The People must reduce their demands concerning what the government is expected to do or they must provide the government with more funds. Perhaps I am biassed in what I say next because (although I feel richer than America) I live on a very modest income. There are many people and concerns that are so rich that it is obscene. These people and concerns could probably bail out their respective countries if they so wished. They could certainly pay a lot more tax! I can see reasons why they would not wish to do that because the whole sorry mess would just start again.

[Brainteaserfan]

Very odd here in this forum. A most unscientific approach. And such optimism. I have an 85 year old friend who, because of actual personal experience, does not have your pie in the sky faith. Short? Really? Why?

 

Government even in times of robber barons and before in times of landed gentry never ever left the economy alone. Such an intense radical departure would indeed be a large experiment without any scientific basis whatsoever.

Oops, I hit post too soon.

 

What I meant to say is that when in a depression, the government shouldn't do anything that they wouldn't do when the economy is going well.

 

Well, that's the shortest argument I've ever had lol.

No.

[Hal.]

Yes , so printing money doesn't add value , though numerically it looks like it does , it actually dilutes it . Print for everybody a million dollars for christmas and your exchange rates will plummet while extreme inflation will make you wonder why you did it in the first place .

[TonyMcC]

No.

 

OK you now hold the record. Don't bother to reply with "I?". lol

[amanda more]

Oops, I hit post too soon.

 

What I meant to say is that when in a depression, the government shouldn't do anything that they wouldn't do when the economy is going well.

 

 

No.

 

Now isn't this just silly?

 

In your own personal life you would ignore all data regarding the direction you are taking and plow full steam ahead regardless of it?

 

Everyone has some level of blind faith. Whatever approach you are using has to be based on that to some level. We all have blind spots.

[Hal.]

Is there any chance that the USA can get a job to earn a few $ ? What is it good at , besides robbing it's own people ?

[amanda more]

Is there any chance that the USA can get a job to earn a few $ ? What is it good at , besides robbing it's own people ?

 

It is good at hating science and even reasoning allowing it to not only rob and steal but smile and tell you that it is for your own good.

 

There does exist however opinions that run counter to that.

[Hal.]

Would one physical manifestation of the USA loving science be the Atlas 5 Rocket shortly about to take off sending Juno the satellite to Jupiter . I'll give $20 for one of those !

[Brainteaserfan]

Well, that's the shortest argument I've ever had lol.

More seriously, if you think my post #42 is wrong then you must think the premise that lies behind my statement is also "wrong".

As I see it in a democracy the government is elected by the People in order to run the country in accordance with the wishes of the People. This work necessitates the spending of money. If we discount the idea of printing money (which devalues all money in existence) the money needed must come from the People. If the money coming into the government's coffers and the money the government has to spend to meet the wishes of the People do not balance then I see only two sensible options for long term stability. The People must reduce their demands concerning what the government is expected to do or they must provide the government with more funds. Perhaps I am biassed in what I say next because (although I feel richer than America) I live on a very modest income. There are many people and concerns that are so rich that it is obscene. These people and concerns could probably bail out their respective countries if they so wished. They could certainly pay a lot more tax! I can see reasons why they would not wish to do that because the whole sorry mess would just start again.

Seriously this time. I don't want to go too far off topic, but....

 

IMO, there is no such thing as too rich. I think this for a few reasons. Firstly, they do help bail out our country via (a) the taxes while they are alive, and (b) from the death tax. (not to mention the tax on whoever receives some of their fortune as an inheritance, I'm not certain of the current rules.) Secondly, a rich person generally will want a nice house, clothes, car, mowed lawn etc, and will create jobs for others who are not as fortunate. IMO, wealthy people are essential to our economy.

 

Edit: I should add, as long as their wealth is acquired honestly.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[TonyMcC]

Seriously this time. I don't want to go too far off topic, but....

 

IMO, there is no such thing as too rich. .............................................................IMO, wealthy people are essential to our economy.

 

Edit: I should add, as long as their wealth is acquired honestly.

 

Obviously there is much truth in what you say and I did say I might be biassed. I am not trying to make a case for equality of income but I do feel that some people and some organisations are so rich that they could afford to put more into the national pot. I also feel that rewards for effort could be more sensibly distributed. I find it obscene that a pop singer can earn many times the income of a brain surgeon or that many people in local government in the UK earn much more than the salary of the Prime Minister. I feel that we are getting rather off topic so I will repeat the point that I originally made - I think that allowing the National Debt to increase year on year is dangerous and a sensible strategy would involve shrinking it year by year.

[amanda more]

Obviously there is much truth in what you say and I did say I might be biassed. I am not trying to make a case for equality of income but I do feel that some people and some organisations are so rich that they could afford to put more into the national pot. I also feel that rewards for effort could be more sensibly distributed. I find it obscene that a pop singer can earn many times the income of a brain surgeon or that many people in local government in the UK earn much more than the salary of the Prime Minister. I feel that we are getting rather off topic so I will repeat the point that I originally made - I think that allowing the National Debt to increase year on year is dangerous and a sensible strategy would involve shrinking it year by year.

 

A dangerous strategy which shows lack of any sensible strategy would involve shrinking national debt year on year. Just so you know your concept is Hooverism. How is that working for you?

 

So, again the reason the American economy is deteriorating -now- is kneejerk reactions with wrong headed thinking.

[Greg Boyles]

Seriously this time. I don't want to go too far off topic, but....

 

IMO, there is no such thing as too rich. I think this for a few reasons. Firstly, they do help bail out our country via (a) the taxes while they are alive, and (b) from the death tax. (not to mention the tax on whoever receives some of their fortune as an inheritance, I'm not certain of the current rules.) Secondly, a rich person generally will want a nice house, clothes, car, mowed lawn etc, and will create jobs for others who are not as fortunate. IMO, wealthy people are essential to our economy.

 

Edit: I should add, as long as their wealth is acquired honestly.

 

In th usa all that wealthy people seem to do is evade taxes. It is the majority of ordinary people who can't afford the smart ar$e lawyers and accountants who collectively pay the bulk of the tax revenue.

 

Wealthy people might therefore be regarded as a drain on the economy - taking a great deal of wealth and funnelling it off shore into Swiss bank accounts and not purchasing locally etc.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[TonyMcC]

A dangerous strategy which shows lack of any sensible strategy would involve shrinking national debt year on year. Just so you know your concept is Hooverism. How is that working for you?

 

So, again the reason the American economy is deteriorating -now- is kneejerk reactions with wrong headed thinking.

 

I don't see you making any logical argument that my thoughts are not sensible and as I have harboured those thoughts for more than 50 years they can hardly be described as "kneejerk".

 

If a child repeatedly demands more from a parent than the parent can afford it is being unrealistic. If the parent decides to use credit repeatedly to meet this demand then the parent will eventually be in financial difficulty.

If employees repeatedly demand of their employer more than the business can support they are being unrealistic. If the management of the business decide to repeatedly use credit to meet these demands the business will eventually fold.

If the citizens of a country repeatedly demand more than taxes can provide they are being unrealistic. If the government(s) of that country tries to keep in office by meeting the demands by steadily increasing the national debt year by year then even the government will find itself in financial difficulty.

 

It seems, from today's news that there are many in the world, particularly from China, who share my concerns.

I attach a quotation made by Charles Dickens in a novel written in 1849 that is generally accepted as good advice.

 

I also attach a couple of "Hoover" quotes. I deduce that, like me, he was in favour of sensible levels of credit.

Edited August 6, 2011 by TonyMcC

[amanda more]

I don't see you making any logical argument that my thoughts are not sensible and as I have harboured those thoughts for more than 50 years they can hardly be described as "kneejerk".

 

If a child repeatedly demands more from a parent than the parent can afford it is being unrealistic. If the parent decides to use credit repeatedly to meet this demand then the parent will eventually be in financial difficulty.

If employees repeatedly demand of their employer more than the business can support they are being unrealistic. If the management of the business decide to repeatedly use credit to meet these demands the business will eventually fold.

If the citizens of a country repeatedly demand more than taxes can provide they are being unrealistic. If the government(s) of that country tries to keep in office by meeting the demands by steadily increasing the national debt year by year then even the government will find itself in financial difficulty.

 

It seems, from today's news that there are many in the world, particularly from China, who share my concerns.

I attach a quotation made by Charles Dickens in a novel written in 1849 that is generally accepted as good advice.

 

I also attach a couple of "Hoover" quotes. I deduce that, like me, he was in favour of sensible levels of credit.

 

You individually are not doing this to the economy.

 

I put at least half the burden on the kneejerk reactions of the TEA party. Meaning they profess proud ignorance of fundamentals and just "feel" it is the right thing to do. Hence a more impulse reaction.

 

I suppose there is no way to have a scientific discussion about economics.

 

Oh well. The moderator even feels comfortable believing it must be politicized.

 

So, this is why this country tanked.

 

 

 

 

 

[Realitycheck]

 

I suppose there is no way to have a scientific discussion about economics.

 

I think this is sort of an accurate conclusion since economics is sort of an inaccurate science like weather, in which you try and predict it but tomorrow something happens outside the scope of your model and by day three, you must start all over. You also have a potentially infinite number of variables working against you, such as 2,000 pages of IRS code supporting an infinite list of various deductions in effect, all designed to support various special interests and get things done. Also reminds me of a joke about this president who says,"All I ever wanted was a one handed economist, because they always say,'On the one hand, this will happen, but on the other hand, this will also happen.'"

 

However, if you had a question or issue regarding economics as it is applied to the sciences, why not Applied Mathematics?

[amanda more]

I think this is sort of an accurate conclusion since economics is sort of an inaccurate science like weather, in which you try and predict it but tomorrow something happens outside the scope of your model and by day three, you must start all over. You also have a potentially infinite number of variables working against you, such as 2,000 pages of IRS code supporting an infinite list of various deductions in effect, all designed to support various special interests and get things done. Also reminds me of a joke about this president who says,"All I ever wanted was a one handed economist, because they always say,'On the one hand, this will happen, but on the other hand, this will also happen.'"

 

However, if you had a question or issue regarding economics as it is applied to the sciences, why not Applied Mathematics?

 

Let's consider three levels. The tree, the forest, the ecosystem. The answer to why is the American economy deteriorating? could better be discussed on the forest level. Bouncing down to the tree level, may provide great data but does little to answer the question. Continuing to escalate it as a purely political question influences people to leave logic behind.

 

It doesn't have to be math or politics. Just as hurricanes can be discussed scientifically so too can economics.

[swansont]

Oh well. The moderator even feels comfortable believing it must be politicized.

 

Is this a reference to me?

[iNow]

The only (minor) quibble I see is the bit about paying for more pharma for the elderly. Isn't the problem there that Medicare (Medicaid?) isn't allowed to negotiate for cheaper bulk buying prices? Or do I have that wrong?

Yes, that's certainly part of the problem. The ability to negotiate lower prices and bulk/volume discounts was left out, and that hurt us financially. The other part of the problem (and the primary one to which I was alluding) is that they enacted the bill and had no way to pay for it, even though it was so enormously expensive. They knew it was going to add tons to our deficit, but did nothing to rectify that. We ultimately had to continue borrowing to pay for it.

 

 

 

 

 

Partly because of the USA'a grossly unsustainable immigration intake (legal and illegal).

This is actually untrue. I know that facts can sometimes get in the way of a good story, but immigration has more benefit on the economy than detriment.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/news/economy/immigration_economy/index.htm

In the heated debate over the impact of illegal immigration on the U.S. economy, Andrew Sum is one of those focusing on the negative.

 

The economist - the director of labor market studies at Northeastern University in Boston - argues that the large supply of immigrants has displaced low-skilled U.S.-born workers, particularly the young and the poor, from jobs.

 

"About 85.5 of every 100 new workers are new immigrants in this decade," he said. "At no time in the last 60 years have we come close to this. They're really displacing young workers at a very high rate."

 

But even Sum would concede that the U.S. economy is larger, and growing faster, due to the supply of illegal immigrants, and that most Americans with higher job skills are better off for their presence.

 

"Without the immigrants, we would have a decline in labor force of 3 to 4 percent," he said. "We couldn't have grown nearly as much as we did in the '90s if we didn't have immigrants. And in the last few years our growth would have been slower. The only thing I've argued is that we've ignored that illegal immigration has put a lot of young adults into economic jeopardy."

 

Sum's views point out the dichotomy that many economists see when looking at the impact of immigration on the economy.

 

Few economists will argue with the concept that the economy is stronger for the presence of the low-cost labor force.

 

And while most admit they have to make guesses rather than the educated estimates they would like to make, most say that economic growth would be a half a percentage point to 2 points lower without immigrant workers.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States#Economic_Benefits_of_Undocumented_Immigrants

Illegal immigrants pay social security payroll taxes but are not eligible for benefits. During 2006, Standard & Poor's analysts wrote: "Each year, for example, the U.S. Social Security Administration maintains roughly $6 billion to $7 billion of Social Security contributions in an "earnings suspense file" -- an account for W-2 tax forms that cannot be matched to the correct Social Security number. The vast majority of these numbers are attributable to undocumented workers who will never claim their benefits."

<...>

When the wages of lower-skilled workers go down, the rest of America benefits by paying lower prices for things like restaurant meals, agricultural produce and construction. The economic impact of illegal immigration is far smaller than other trends in the economy, such as the increasing use of automation in manufacturing or the growth in global trade. Those two factors have a much bigger impact on wages, prices and the health of the U.S. economy. But economists generally believe that when averaged over the whole economy, the effect is a small net positive. Harvard's George Borjas says the average American's wealth is increased by less than 1 percent because of illegal immigration.

 

Even if you dismiss the numbers, the data doesn't support your position that immigration (illegal or legal) is a significant cause the economic problems being faced today by the US. That story is more accurately told by referencing a lack of demand, and a volatile governing body.

 

 

 

 

I suppose there is no way to have a scientific discussion about economics.

Science is a method, and if people follow that method, then there is nothing preventing us from using science in a discussion about economics. Economics is the study of complex systems and their interaction with complex human minds, but the most accurate schools of thought have demonstrated consistent success in modeling and predicting, and use evidence and a scientific methodology when doing so. One must simply reject points when they are shown fallacious and accept points supported by evidence. The challenge we have is that people so often work from remedial understandings of economics, or ascribe to some unfounded view or version and so choose to argue ideology first. Your problem is with the lack of integrity in humans having the discussions, not with the field of economics itself.

 

Also, I strongly encourage you to clean up your own arguments, tighten them up quite a bit, and begin using evidence instead of emotional pleas. Your posts have done nothing in this thread except show your style to be lacking. Further, you ought to recognize that swansont is not even close to the caricature you've painted of him (this last point goes to you, as well, Jackson... just because you're struggling to follow his logic does not mean he's engaged in nefarious debating tactics).

[amanda more]

 

 

Also, I strongly encourage you to clean up your own arguments, tighten them up quite a bit, and begin using evidence instead of emotional pleas. Your posts have done nothing in this thread except show your style to be lacking. Further, you ought to recognize that swansont is not even close to the caricature you've painted of him (this last point goes to you, as well, Jackson... just because you're struggling to follow his logic does not mean he's engaged in nefarious debating tactics).

 

Now I understand. As long as you (not individually let's say one) As long as one can parrot the dubious bull that one's golf buddies continually repeat then wow- now you are (one is) not emotional. With your (oops one's) buddies on one's sides it has been sanitized. Cleaned. Made pristine and oh so pleasant. Form a party. Enjoy.

 

You have excellent posts.

 

I suggest though that the current state of affairs does not profit from pleasant violin music. A certain drumbeat may be considered possibly appropriate. Certainly. I think it is brave to call ridiculous claims out. It isn't like you (now this means you) are going to be facing tanks over it.

 

I'm currently hearing "brinkmanship" and all kinds of gobblygook Washington DC terms that I think no one who keeps saying them even understands the meaning of. So let's define it in terms you (here you) find totally inappropriate. Brinkmanship = smallminded Good Old Boy deadly Gameboy-style gameplaying chicken, endangering with heartlessness the wellbeing of all concerned and especially you and me. (you all and me)

 

Sanitizing in dispassionate third person will prove more effective for any who have difficulty with understanding. A suggestion might be made to meet halfway and allow a little writing flare from the direction from which things are considered on the part of very lucid posters such as iNow.

 

As far as lacking style- right back at ya. Plus I failed to quote again and used the same words sent to me.

 

Curious- have you moved your stocks in your 401k to FDIC insured?

 

By the way I have an interest in the question Why is the American economy deteriorating? My interest is peeked by immediate current events.

 

 

 

[swansont]

Now I understand. As long as you (not individually let's say one) As long as one can parrot the dubious bull that one's golf buddies continually repeat then wow- now you are (one is) not emotional. With your (oops one's) buddies on one's sides it has been sanitized. Cleaned. Made pristine and oh so pleasant. Form a party. Enjoy.

 

You have excellent posts.

 

I suggest though that the current state of affairs does not profit from pleasant violin music. A certain drumbeat may be considered possibly appropriate. Certainly. I think it is brave to call ridiculous claims out. It isn't like you (now this means you) are going to be facing tanks over it.

 

Phrases such as "golf buddies dubious bull" and "pleasant violin music" hardly constitute a rebuttal of claims, much less a brave one.

[Taylor]

Hi,

I have decided to call those who refuse to understand anything about the Great Depression as Hooverists.

 

The lesson learned is ,however disturbing it is to Joe sixpack who is out of work, that it deepens and lengthens a recession if government pulls back and slows spending. So somehow having this belief that if "I cut back government should too." is a kneejerk reaction that is wrongheaded.

What does cutting spending have to do with "Hooverism"? Despite a stated belief that spending should be restrained, spending increased significantly under Hoover - some 50% in a failed bid to stimulate the economy. During his term as President, the debt/gnp ratio shot up from 16% to 40%.

 

Like Roosevelt, he believed in the importance of a balanced budget. And like Roosevelt, he believed the best way -- the necessary way -- of accomplishing that was through tax increases. He did so significantly with the Revenue Act of 1932, which doubled the estate tax, increased corporate taxes, and more than doubled tax rates on "the rich," ushering in the era of progressive taxation. It was the biggest tax increase in history. It brought in a lot of extra revenue that was spent as quickly as it came in.

 

These policies have very little in common with an "if I cut back government should too" approach, and seem more in line with the modern day progressive than the guy waving the tea pary sign.

[amanda more]

What does cutting spending have to do with "Hooverism"? Despite a stated belief that spending should be restrained, spending increased significantly under Hoover - some 50% in a failed bid to stimulate the economy. During his term as President, the debt/gnp ratio shot up from 16% to 40%.

 

Like Roosevelt, he believed in the importance of a balanced budget. And like Roosevelt, he believed the best way -- the necessary way -- of accomplishing that was through tax increases. He did so significantly with the Revenue Act of 1932, which doubled the estate tax, increased corporate taxes, and more than doubled tax rates on "the rich," ushering in the era of progressive taxation. It was the biggest tax increase in history. It brought in a lot of extra revenue that was spent as quickly as it came in.

 

These policies have very little in common with an "if I cut back government should too" approach, and seem more in line with the modern day progressive than the guy waving the tea pary sign.

 

 

Hoover's Inaction

At first, President Herbert Hoover and other officials downplayed the stock market crash, claiming that the economic slump would be only temporary and that it would actually help clean up corruption and bad business practices within the system. When the situation did not improve, Hoover advocated a strict laissez-faire (hands-off) policy dictating that the federal government should not interfere with the economy but rather let the economy right itself. Furthermore, Hoover argued that the nation would pull out of the slump if American families merely steeled their determination, continued to work hard, and practiced self-reliance.

 

 

 

Hoover’s Failure

Hoover’s inability to recognize the severity of the Great Depression only magnified the depression’s effects. Many historians and economists believe that Hoover might have been able to dampen the effects of the depression by using the federal government’s authority to establish financial regulations and provide direct relief to the unemployed and homeless. However, Hoover continued to adhere rigidly to his hands-off approach. This inaction, combined with Hoover’s treatment of the “Bonus Army” and his repeated arguments that Americans could get through the depression simply by buckling down and working hard, convinced Americans that he was unfit to revive the economy and destroyed his previous reputation as a great humanitarian.

 

 

 

http://www.sparknote.../section4.rhtml

 

 

Edited August 18, 2011 by amanda more

[Taylor]

Hoover's Inaction

At first, President Herbert Hoover and other officials downplayed the stock market crash, claiming that the economic slump would be only temporary and that it would actually help clean up corruption and bad business practices within the system. When the situation did not improve, Hoover advocated a strict laissez-faire (hands-off) policy dictating that the federal government should not interfere with the economy but rather let the economy right itself. Furthermore, Hoover argued that the nation would pull out of the slump if American families merely steeled their determination, continued to work hard, and practiced self-reliance.

 

 

 

Hoover's Failure

Hoover's inability to recognize the severity of the Great Depression only magnified the depression's effects. Many historians and economists believe that Hoover might have been able to dampen the effects of the depression by using the federal government's authority to establish financial regulations and provide direct relief to the unemployed and homeless. However, Hoover continued to adhere rigidly to his hands-off approach. This inaction, combined with Hoover's treatment of the "Bonus Army" and his repeated arguments that Americans could get through the depression simply by buckling down and working hard, convinced Americans that he was unfit to revive the economy and destroyed his previous reputation as a great humanitarian.

 

 

 

http://www.sparknote.../section4.rhtml

 

 

Then there's what Hoover actually believed/espoused in his writings:

American Individualism by Herbert Hoover

"In our individualism we have long since abandoned the laissez faire of the 18th Centurythe notion that it is "every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost." We abandoned that when we adopted the ideal of equality of opportunitythe fair chance of Abraham Lincoln. We have confirmed its abandonment in terms of legislation, of social and economic justice, in part because we have learned that it is the hindmost who throws the bricks at our social edifice, in part because we have learned that the foremost are not always the best nor the hindmost the worstand in part because we have learned that social injustice is the destruction of justice itself. We have learned that the impulse to production can only be maintained at a high pitch if there is a fair division of the product. We have also learned that fair division can only be obtained by certain restrictions on the strong and the dominant.…"

Memoirs; The Origins of the Depression

"Two schools of thought quickly developed within our administration discussions. First was the 'leave it alone liquidationists' headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellon, who felt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself.

 

But other members of the Administration...believed with me that we should use the powers of government to cushion the situation. To our minds, the prime needs were to prevent bank panics such as had marked the earlier slumps, to mitigate the privation among the unemployed and the farmers which would certainly ensue...

 

The record will show that we went into action within ten days and were steadily organizing each week and month thereafter to meet the changing tidesmostly for the worse. In this earlier stage we determined that the Federal government should use all of its powers:

 

(a) to avoid the bank depositors' and credit panics which had so generally accompanied previous violent slumps;

(b) to cushion slowly, by various devices, the inevitable liquidation of false values so as to prevent widespread bankruptcy and the losses of homes and productive power;

© to give aid to agriculture;

(d) to mitigate unemployment and to relieve those in actual distress;

(e) to prevent industrial conflict and social disorder;

(f) to preserve the financial strength of the United States government, our credit and our currency, as the economic Gibraltar of the earthin other words, to assure that America should meet every foreign debt, and keep the dollar ringing true on every counter in the world;

(g) to advance much-needed economic and social reforms as fast as could be, without such drastic action as would intensify the illness of an already sick nation;

(h) to sustain the morale and courage of the people in order that their initiative should remain unimpaired, and to secure from the people themselves every effort for their own salvation;

(i) to adhere rigidly to the Constitution and the fundamental liberties of the people.

 

And there's his acutal record, which contradicts many of the statements you quote:

• Hoover advocated a strict laissez-faire (hands-off) policy dictating that the federal government should not interfere with the economy - Nope, rejected by his administration rather early, and he is on the record as early as 1922 in denouncing laissez-faire policy. With his industrial labor program he convinced business leaders to maintain or raise wages and provide for work-sharing by promising them safety from union pressure in return. He proposed a new department of education, a monthly stipend for seniors, and provided an enormous increase in farm subsidies. Then there's that massive tax increase I mentioned earlier. I could go on. These are not the actions of someone who advocated a strict laissez-faire policy.
• Hoover might have been able to dampen the effects of the depression by using the federal government's authority to establish financial regulations and provide direct relief to the unemployed and homeless.However, Hoover continued to adhere rigidly to his hands-off approach. - From wiki: He advocated tax reduction for low-income Americans (not enacted); doubled the number of veterans' hospital facilities; wrote a Children's Charter that advocated protection of every child regardless of race or gender; proposed federal loans for urban slum clearances (not enacted); advocated $50-per-month pensions for Americans over 65 (not enacted); chaired White House conferences on child health, protection, homebuilding and home-ownership.

 

Hoover was a progressive Republican, whose policies had more in common with today's Democratic party than those you would call "Hooverists"

 

Edited August 18, 2011 by Taylor

[jackson33]

Taylor from a casual poster, welcome to the forum. Hope you hang around awhile, as we seriously need people with some historical knowledge.

 

I had thought about going over the "Progressive Movement", Roosevelt, Wilson, Hoover and FDR, but it's a bit complicated to explain. Will be looking forward to your post...