True or False: Great Depression due to Lack of Federal Involvement

I am by far not an expert in this field, but I would like to throw my input out there. Couldn't you say something about competing currencies? Meaning, once competing currencies are allowed to be "legal tender," won't that act as a cushion for the dollar on a nose dive? Once federal involvement is reduced, manipulations of the fiat currency will halt, yes, but lack of federal involvement also means competing hard asset currency. It's like a doctor continuously stabbing and suturing a wound. Only once the wound (fiat currency) is gone, will suturing (federal involvement) be unnecessary Am I way off track here?
 
The recession after 1929 did not become a depression until 1933. Read Rothbard's America's Great Depression
 
I think it's false. FDR was very active during the recession/depression but we didn't start to recover until the last years of his presidency. As for the Federal Reserve, yes, Ben Bernanke did admit that the Fed shouldn't have reduced the money supply. If the Fed didn't do that, and indeed, if the Fed never existed, we would have recovered in a year or too, according to Milton Friedman. Also, according to the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, the boom during the Roaring 20s was caused by credit expansion, and with a boom, there must come a bust. However, there was no reason the Great Depression had to be that long, no matter what school of thought you follow. Government action took a recession and turned it into depression (Smoot-Hawley Tariff, FDR's price supports etc.)
 
Last edited:
Here's an except/review of Thomas Woods book, 33 Questions about American History::

In school, we learned that the boom times of the “Roaring Twenties” were leading to impending economic disaster due to the "laissez-faire", pro-business policies of three Republican presidents: Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover. When the Stock Market crashed in 1929, the Great Depression struck, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt was voted into office, replacing Herbert Hoover. FDR heroically started a slew of government programs through his “New Deal”, which put America back to work.

According to Woods, it didn’t quite happen that way.

Although Herbert Hoover was a Republican, he effectively started the New Deal. The FDR administration’s own Rexford Tugwell later acknowledged this, saying: “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.” When the Stock Market crashed in 1929 and the Depression hit, Hoover, in an attempt to “do something”, created the Federal Farm Bureau and Reconstruction Finance Corporation, plus he passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. These were interventions that attacked the free market.

Roosevelt’s policies were even more misguided than Hoover’s (Roosevelt himself said that he never read a book on economics.) One day he raised the gold price by 21 cents. When Henry Morgenthau, who later became Treasury Secretary, asked him why, Roosevelt said that "it's a lucky number, because it's three times seven." Morgenthau wrote later: "If anybody ever knew how we set the gold price through a combination of lucky numbers, etc., I think they would be frightened." (You can read about this in a book titled "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression,” by Amity Shlaes.)

FDR and his advisers believed that falling wages and falling prices weren’t a symptom of the Depression, but the cause of it. FDR’s National Industry Recovery Act (NRA) created government-sanctioned cartels that set minimum prices, clearly not a consumer-friendly policy. (The Schechter brothers, first-generation Jewish immigrant butchers who paid themselves salaries of $35 per week, were prosecuted under the NRA for engaging in “keen competition”, or giving customers too much choice. They lost their federal court case and were about to serve jail time until the Supreme Court vindicated them. After that rebuke to the NRA, Roosevelt began his controversial, and unpopular, attempt to “pack the courts”.)

The FDR administration also instituted the Agricultural Adjustment Act, ordering six million pigs to be slaughtered and 10 million acres of cotton to be destroyed. All to keep prices up while many people were starving and wearing rags.

Woods correctly challenges the widely taught belief that FDR “ended” the Great Depression, noting that “under FDR, unemployment averaged a whopping 18 percent from 1933 to 1940.” (FDR’s best year was 1937, when the unemployment rate dropped to 14.3 percent, though in 1938 it shot up again to 19 percent.) Keep in mind; this was in the thirties, when most women didn’t work. Adjusted for today, you could practically double those figures. Also, 12 million men (almost 10% of the US population) were conscripted into military service when America entered World War II, so they weren’t showing up on the unemployment line. On top of that, the Stock Market didn’t average pre-Crash of 1929 levels until 1954, when Dwight Eisenhower was in the Oval Office.

Conversely, Woods notes, the historically maligned Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge administrations were marked by peace and prosperity, with unemployment rates falling to as low as 1 percent, while the nation was still recovering from Woodrow Wilson’s entry into World War I and also absorbing millions of immigrants. Woods quotes Coolidge as saying: “Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business.”
 
It's going to be hard to debate this...because it seems like your professor goes right along with what they feed him. Just tell him to see both sides of the arguement before judging...honestly it's that simple.
 
A history professor says:

Great Depression was caused by: lack of federal involvement (too much fraud/not much oversight) and top heavy distribution of income (rich got richer compared to poor people-- Hedge funds?).

He said if RP was to be president today-- there would be less federal involvement thus we would face another depression. He said current situation is in line with the era before Great Depression--- AND THE FED RESERVE (Federal involvement) IS THE ONLY REASON WE HAVE NOT SEEN A CRASH.

How do I refute?


Another quick question: People say hedge funds are bad because it's basically people ripping off other people. How do I refute that mentality with capitalist ideas?

Ask your professor why America did not have a major depression before the Fed came into existence. All the "panics" of the 19th century were very brief - with no government involvement, any malinvestment worked itself out of the system quickly.

Once the Fed came into existence, malinvestment was encouraged, creating larger bubbles with larger busts.

I have not read Rothbard's book on the Great Depression, though I hope to soon. I did read FDR's Folly by Jim Powell, which does a great job of highlighting all the misguided interventions Roosevelt implemented in the 1930s. If the New Deal was so great, ask your professor about the Depression of 1938. This was "the depression within the Depression." After five years of government programs, the economy took a serious downturn in 1938 - you can't blame that on the laissez-faire of the 1920s Republicans.

A few other points: with the existence of the Fed, banks EXPECTED the Fed to step in and solve the problem, so they didn't take the initiative as they had in years past. So to some degree, your professor CAN argue that inaction by the Fed caused things to get worse. But that's only because the inaction came as a surprise to the banks - they EXPECTED some sort of action. If RP did become President, everyone would know what to expect from the federal government in an economic downturn - NOTHING!!! And that would make all the difference.

One last example of government regulation making things worse - many states in the US had unit banking laws, which prohibited banks from operating more than one branch. So rural banks were unable to hedge away their risk. Their captial was completely tied up in local projects and farms - if the local economy sank, the bank went under. 90% of bank failures were rural banks. For comparison, Canada did not have unit banking laws at the time (but did undergo a similar economic downturn). Canada did not have a single bank failure in that era.

Regarding hedge funds, what aspect are you referring to? Hedge funds are heavily regulated. You have to have $1.5 million in assets to be able to invest in one. Ridiculous. Why don't we just say, if you're (relatively) poor, you're too stupid to invest in these neat investment vehicles. Also, the mutual fund industry has lobbied to keep hedge funds from advertising - you notice how you never see a hedge fund commercial or magazine ad?

Hope this helps...

Z
 
Roosevelt’s policies were even more misguided than Hoover’s (Roosevelt himself said that he never read a book on economics.) One day he raised the gold price by 21 cents. When Henry Morgenthau, who later became Treasury Secretary, asked him why, Roosevelt said that "it's a lucky number, because it's three times seven." Morgenthau wrote later: "If anybody ever knew how we set the gold price through a combination of lucky numbers, etc., I think they would be frightened." (You can read about this in a book titled "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression,” by Amity Shlaes.)
:D Holy crap, that is hilarious. It's amazing the type of leftist revisionism that gets taught at schools. We're led to believe someone who never opened an ecnomics text got us out of the Great Depression.


Here's a great quote I heard on The Korelin Economics Report:

My father may have felt similarly but he had no intention of making his job as Governor of the Federal Reserve look like political position, which he felt it was not meant to be nor should be. On the other hand, he didn't see any sense in remaining in the government since he felt he was tilting at windmills. When president Roosevelt asked him to stay as head of the Federal Reserve, he agreed to do so, but in late March he sent FDR his letter of resignation. In his eyes Roosevelt's sins were many, but a few stood out: his experimentation with the dollar, his disregard for the gold standard and his general lack of sophistication about economic and financial polices. A lack shared, I must say, by every other president. --Catherine Graham


BTW, great points zadrock
 
A history professor says:

Great Depression was caused by: lack of federal involvement (too much fraud/not much oversight) and top heavy distribution of income (rich got richer compared to poor people-- Hedge funds?).

Statists believe that if they could only regulate every aspect of an economy, that then they could "guide" (force) it in a positive direction.

The reality is that the economy is just way too complex for that approach to have even a tiny chance of ever working. The number of decisions, interactions, factors, considerations, etc, is way beyond anything that can be policed or regulated on a fine scale. The ONLY solution that can possibly address that complexity is a totally free, laissez-faire economy.

Regarding the Great Depression in particular, history very clearly shows that government intervention caused both the stock market crash and the depression that followed. More of the same would have just made it worse.


He said current situation is in line with the era before Great Depression--- AND THE FED RESERVE (Federal involvement) IS THE ONLY REASON WE HAVE NOT SEEN A CRASH.

He's probably right about this. Except for one important point: the Fed also caused the very problems that they are now trying to manage. So, yes, if we didn't have a Fed this second, there would be a crash. But if the Fed had been abolished 20+ yrs ago, the whole crisis would never have developed in the first place.

Also, FWIW, a "crash" isn't always a bad thing. Recessions serve an important purpose: cleaning out the system. If they're put off for long enough, when the needed corrections do eventually arrive, they're much worse than they would have been otherwise. It's like forest fires or earthquakes: frequent small ones can prevent the occasional really big one.
 
Also, FWIW, a "crash" isn't always a bad thing. Recessions serve an important purpose: cleaning out the system. If they're put off for long enough, when the needed corrections do eventually arrive, they're much worse than they would have been otherwise. It's like forest fires or earthquakes: frequent small ones can prevent the occasional really big one.

That analogy is GENIUS! I went to Yellowstone National Park the year after their major fire (1989). All the park rangers were discussing how they would put out every fire for decades, thinking they were doing something good. But, as you say, small fires were needed to "clean out the system [forest]." By putting out every fire, the loose underbrush in the forest built up to a ridiculous level, and then a major fire broke out that couldn't be controlled. I think this is where we point out the unintended consequences of good intentions. Now they only put out fires started by humans. They let natural fires (typically from lightning) run their course.

I went back to Yellowstone recently. The rebirth of the forest is a sight to behold. Millions of pine trees that are only 10-15 feet tall. Maybe someday I'll get to witness the rebirth of our economy. We can only hope.

Z
 
Completely agree AceNZ. Yes, maybe the Fed is preventing a temporary crash, but then you have to ask, "what are the consequences of that?" It can't go on forever, and eventually, what you get is a "zombie economy" or "necronomics" :D

TheAmistad, ask you're professor if he's happy about the current income inequality in this country. Because the Fed and statist policies he's supporting only exacerbate that problem.
 
Back
Top