There have been many truly awful presidents elected in the United States, but if I had to pick my least favorite, I might choose Herbert Hoover.
I obviously have disdain for Hoover’s big-government policies, but I also am extremely irritated that – as Jonah Goldberg explained – he allowed the left to create an utterly bogus narrative that the Great Depression was caused by capitalism and free markets.
Indeed, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity produced a video demonstrating that the statist policies of both Hoover and Roosevelt helped trigger, deepen, and lengthen the economic slump.
Building on that theme, here’s a new video from Prager University that looks specifically at the misguided policies of Herbert Hoover.
Amen. Great job unmasking Hoover’s terrible record.
As I explained when correcting a glaring error by Andrew Sullivan, Hoover was a big-government interventionist. Heck, even FDR’s inner circle understood that the New Deal was simply an extension of Hoover’s statist policies.
In other words, FDR doubled down on Hoover’s awful record. And with awful results. We have a better understanding today of how the New Deal caused the downturn to be deeper and longer.
This Tom Sowell video is definitely worth watching if you want more information on that topic.
And here’s something else to share with your big-government friends. The Keynesian crowd was predicting another massive depression after World War II because of both a reduction in wartime outlays and the demobilization of millions of troops. Yet that didn’t happen, as Jeff Jacoby has succinctly explained. And if you want more details on how smaller government helped restore growth after WWII, check out what Jason Taylor and Rich Vedder wrote for Cato.
P.S. I’ve compared Bush and Obama to Hoover and Roosevelt because of some very obvious similarities. Bush was a big-government Republican who helped pave the way for a big-government Democrat, just as Hoover was a big-government Republican who also created the conditions for a big-government Democrat.
The analogy also is good because I suspect political and economic incompetence led both Hoover and Bush to expand the burden of government, whereas their successors were ideologically committed to bigger government. We know about Obama’s visceral statism, and you can watch a video of FDR advocating genuinely awful policy.
The good news is that Obama will never be as bad as FDR, no matter how hard he tries.
P.P.S. It’s also worth mentioning that a very serious downturn in 1921 was quickly ended in part thanks to big reductions in the burden of government spending. Your Keynesian friends will also have a hard time explaining how that happened.
[…] has a terrible track record in the real […]
[…] has a terrible track record in the real […]
[…] makers had learned a big lesson from the Great Depression about how protectionism was economic poison, and various trade agreements after World War IIhelped reduce trade taxes and other barriers to […]
[…] makers had learned a big lesson from the Great Depression about how protectionism was economic poison, and various trade agreements after World War II helped reduce trade taxes and other barriers to […]
[…] Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt both increased the burden of government and the net result was a decade-long depression. […]
[…] Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt both increased the burden of government and the net result was a decade-long depression. […]
[…] about a quick end to a massive economic downturn (unlike the big-government policies of Hoover and Roosevelt, which deepened and lengthened the Great […]
[…] that’s being charitable. For all intents and purposes, he doubled down on the bad policies of Herbert Hoover. As a result, what should have been a typical recession wound up becoming the Great […]
[…] that’s being charitable. For all intents and purposes, he doubled down on the bad policies of Herbert Hoover. As a result, what should have been a typical recession wound up becoming the Great […]
[…] bring about a quick end to a massive economic downturn (unlike the big-government policies of Hoover and Roosevelt, which deepened and lengthened the Great […]
[…] bring about a quick end to a massive economic downturn (unlike the big-government policies of Hoover and Roosevelt, which deepened and lengthened the Great […]
[…] undermined prosperity. Indeed, one of my main complaints is that he doubled down on many of the bad policies adopted by his predecessor, Herbert […]
[…] column points out that both Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt then imposed policies that lengthened and deepened the […]
[…] column points out that both Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt then imposed policies that lengthened and deepened the […]
[…] For further information on the Great Depression and bad government policy, you can watch other videos here and here. […]
[…] For further information on the Great Depression and bad government policy, you can watch other videos here and here. […]
[…] time, then why did the U.S. economy languish for an entire decade under the Keynesian policies of Hoover and FDR? And why has the Japanese economy languished for several decades when politicians on that […]
[…] For instance, it notes that FDR’s New Deal did not work (as I’ve repeatedly explained, though it also should have acknowledged that Hoover made the same mistakes). […]
[…] during the economic crisis of the 1930s. Indeed, it’s quite likely that bad decisions by Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt deepened and lengthened the Great […]
[…] undermined prosperity. Indeed, one of my main complaints is that he doubled down on many of the bad policies adopted by his predecessor, Herbert […]
[…] I’ve explained before, FDR deserves scorn for doubling down on Hoover’s awful policies of higher taxes, increased spending, and more intervention – thus keeping the economy mired […]
[…] not just that Trump is the most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover, though that’s certainly a damning […]
[…] not just that Trump is the most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover, though that’s certainly a damning […]
[…] then cite some country-specific examples, including how Herbert Hoover’s protectionism contributed to the economic misery of the Great […]
[…] At the risk of understatement, repeating the policies of Herbert Hoover would be a very bad idea. […]
[…] a tit-for-tat trade war, mostly caused by the United States (Hoover’s Smoot-Hawley tariff), also contributed to the economic […]
[…] news, as I explain in this interview, is that his protectionist mistakes could trigger a repeat of Hoover’s beggar-thy-neighbor protectionism that wreaked havoc in the global economy during the […]
[…] In this interview, I fret that tit-for-tax protectionism is bad, and might even lead to a 1930s-style trade war. […]
[…] In this interview, I fret that tit-for-tax protectionism is bad, and might even lead to a 1930s-style trade war. […]
[…] By the way, I’m not just picking on Trump. I’ve criticized other Presidents for protectionist policies, most notably Hoover. […]
[…] go back in time and look at the unambiguously awful economic record of Herbert Hoover. I’ve written about Hoover’s statism on several occasions and thought there was no need for an overall assessment […]
[…] go back in time and look at the unambiguously awful economic record of Herbert Hoover. I’ve written about Hoover’s statism on several occasions and thought there was no need for an overall assessment […]
[…] it’s worth, he wasn’t nearly as bad as Nixon. And if I do this same exercise for LBJ, Hoover, and FDR, I expect Obama won’t be as bad as them, […]
[…] Did Keynesian spending boost the economy under Hoover? No. […]
[…] Did Keynesian spending boost the economy under Hoover? No. […]
[…] Did Keynesian spending boost the economy under Hoover? No. […]
[…] and that the downturn was made more severe and longer lasting thanks to further policy mistakes by Hoover and […]
[…] from Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who advocated and implemented policies that exacerbated the bad policies of Herbert Hoover and thus deepened and lengthened the Great […]
[…] actually think Prof. Rubin overstates his conclusion. It took a lot of truly awful policies by Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt to produce the Great […]
[…] and that the downturn was made more severe and longer lasting thanks to further policy mistakes by Hoover and […]
[…] I’ve shared two other videos from Prager University, one of the Laffer Curve and one about statist policies and the Great Depression. They’ve both very much worth […]
[…] You can enjoy other great videos from Prager University by clicking here, here,here, here, here, and […]
[…] You can enjoy other great videos from Prager University by clicking here, here, here, here, here, and […]
[…] that the economy normally bounces back quickly from a downturn. It was only during the 1930s, when Hoover and Roosevelt competed to impose bad policy, that a recession became a […]
[…] actually think Prof. Rubin overstates his conclusion. It took a lot of truly awful policies by Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt to produce the Great […]
[…] actually think Prof. Rubin overstates his conclusion. It took a lot of truly awful policies by Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt to produce the Great […]
[…] actually think Prof. Rubin overstates his conclusion. It took a lot of truly awful policies by Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt to produce the Great […]
[…] wasn’t caused by deregulated markets. The real blame belongs to all the policy mistakes made by Herbert Hoover and Franklin […]
[…] caused by deregulated markets. The real blame belongs to all the policy mistakes made by Herbert Hoover and Franklin […]
[…] For instance, it notes that FDR’s New Deal did not work (as I’ve repeatedly explained, though it also should have acknowledged that Hoover made the same mistakes). […]
[…] surely belongs on that list, but it would be tough to narrow down the list because FDR, Obama, Hoover, Carter, and Nixon would provide strong […]
[…] surely belongs on that list, but it would be tough to narrow down the list because FDR, Obama, Hoover, Carter, and Nixon would provide strong […]
[…] destructive. Fortunately, research in recent decades has helped more and more people realize that this is an upside-down interpretation. Instead, bad government policy caused the depression and then additional bad policy during the New […]
[…] I’ve shared two other videos from Prager University, one of the Laffer Curve and one about statist policies and the Great Depression. They’ve both very much worth […]
[…] that’s precisely what we got from Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt. Thanks to protectionist policies, higher tax rates, a bigger burden of government […]
[…] that’s precisely what we got from Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt. Thanks to protectionist policies, higher tax rates, a bigger burden of government […]
[…] that’s precisely what we got from Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt. Thanks to protectionist policies, higher tax rates, a bigger burden of government […]
[…] P.S. If you enjoyed this video, you’ll also like other Prager University videos, including ones on profits, the Laffer Curve, and the Great Depression. […]
[…] more of the same since Hoover already got the ball rolling in the wrong direction. Indeed, here’s another video on the Great Depression and it specifically explains how Hoover was a big-government […]
[…] I’ve shared two other videos from Prager University, one of the Laffer Curve and one about statist policies and the Great Depression. They’ve both very much worth […]
The Bush-Obama push towards more coercive collectivism does not simply amount to a longer recession. If the impact were limited to lengthening the recession, then the implication is that things will return to normal, albeit with some delay, minor setback, the good times come back.
But what has happened is the permanent reduction of the American growth trendline. Permanent because the direct and indirect redistribution policies introduced are also permanent. For example, the redistribution enabled by programs like ObamaCare will never be rolled back, no matter who gets elected next. It may become renamed, rebranded etc. but the basic handout whereby “you no longer have to worry about paying for your medical treatments sometime in your lifetime” is now irreversible.
There is also another huge difference between the Hoover-FDR march towards coercive collectivism and the Bush-Obama stunt. Ninety years ago the freedom difference between America and the rest of the world (America’s competitors) was truly vast. America could afford huge mistakes and still come out on top. Today that margin of virtue has grown very thin and may actually be completely gone as evidenced by America’s plummeting rankings in the economic freedom of the world. If there were an economic freedom index in the 1920’s America would have been simply and squarely unbeatable, by a very wide margin even compared to the second best jurisdiction.
As the margin has grown thin (“wafer thin” as Monty Python would say) small mistakes will tip you over into the vicious cycle. That cycle has likely already begun. The fact that the American people voted for Obama to fix Bush’s mistakes is the most apt proof that the American electorate has entered the vortex of prosperity decline.
There was a time when slowing down the pace of coercive collectivism in America was enough for the US to maintain its competitive edge. That is no longer the case. Coercive collectivism needs to be rolled back if America is to maintain its top worldwide prosperity status, so that the American middle class can remain in the world’s top 10% (as they have become accustomed to without realizing or admitting). But the rolling back of coercive collectivism without a catastrophic event (war, bankruptcy etc.) has been an impossible feat for nearly all electorates. Americans will not be the exception.
The worst and almost certain scenario is that the American electorate will react to its decline the same way electorates past the world over have reacted. They will try to hang on to their sliding top prosperity status in the world with more and more redistribution. Both direct redistribution, such as taxes and subsidies, as well as indirect redistribution, such as the dirigistic actions of central banks and other centers of authority. The vicious cycle closes.
Wise people will incorporate this trajectory of decline into their personal plans.
Clearly Dan has entered the Rothbard camp with his rating of Hoover. The curious thing about Hoover was his mining engineering background. Early in his career (like his first engineering job) he began here in Australia as a mining engineer for a gold mine owned by UK investors. Very soon he was put in charge because of the efficiencies he brought to the project. Somewhere between Australia and the White House he lost all his judgment.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
One of the things that opened my eyes to how badly History is taught in our schools was the realization that, far from being the laissez-faire conservative progressives made him out to be, Herbert Hoover was himself a statist whose policies helped turn a sharp recession into the Great Depression. Mitchell provides a good overview, including a must-see video from Prager University.
Great article, the scholarship on the early 1900s America has really improved over the years. Some interesting data and results are flowing out.
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.