tinyurl.com/57nocs -> edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/stop-lying-about-roosevelts-record/
Updated further to say, that goes for you, New York Times readers. Some real news outlet needs to publish a nice short piece on conservative falsehoods about the New Deal.
five "myths" about the Great Depression, we find stated as fact As late as 1938, after almost a decade of governmental "pump priming," almost one out of five workers remained unemployed.
exactly right: it crystallized and let drop consumer worries, accelerating the downturn by occasioning a drying-up of buying on credit. We find listed as a myth Where the market had failed, the government stepped in to protect ordinary people I'm sure the people saved from starving and homelessness by CWA, WPA, and CCC would differ; These people, these people who spend their time propagating these incorrect lessons from the Great Depression, the truth is not in them. For the record, here's a quick look at economic performance under the New Deal.
Jonathan Rees Eric: I notice you don't pick on the WSJ's interpretation of Hoover. I always thought he wasn't that bad a President, but was completely over-matched (sort of like McCain might have been had he been elected on Tuesday). That article makes him seem somewhere to the right of Karl Marx and the left of FDR.
eric It's true that Hoover was not a non-interventionist. It's also true that the forms of intervention he favored were not effective. And I do think he was actually a bad president, sorry to say, and he wasn't above a bit of fibbing himself. One of these days I want to write a post about Hoover's notso true version of the transition to Roosevelt's presidency.
hebisner If it's any consolation, Amity Schlaes was for the most part incomprehensible on the Daily Show. If you didn't know before what her deal was, I doubt anyone was enlightened by her interview, or felt compelled to buy her book.
Russell Belding Both Schlaes and Stewart were incomprehensible. I usually get the idea that Stewart at least reads a chapter or two to familiarize himself with a book; in this case it didn't even seem like he got through the blurb.
Martin G If only we had some sort of expert on the Great Depression - someone who had scholarly insight into it - and possibly someone who knew how to write well, too. If only we had such an expert, they could write a letter to the editor, explaining these facts. Or maybe even an op-ed piece in some paper which could be used as parrot cage lining without being sued by the Humane Association.
November 6, 2008 at 11:51 am SomeCallMeTim If only we had some sort of expert on the Great Depression - someone who had scholarly insight into it - and possibly someone who knew how to write well, too. And if we found such a person, it wouldn't hurt to know people who could place such a piece.
November 6, 2008 at 11:54 am student I suggest that Eric send an op-ed to the Washington Post- they ran a typically crummy piece by Shlaes a few months ago; maybe the editors could be convinced to publish a different, better, perspective.
eric Letters to the editor are wastes of time--you spend an awful lot of time on something that even fewer people read than will read an op-ed. For the same reason, I don't like to send op-eds in over the transom--I'd much rather have an editor's commitment, even provisionally, to publish one.
November 6, 2008 at 12:25 pm ari Okay, not to pile on or anything, but why don't you pitch an editorial to the Times? You've got a awesome portfolio to show them, and you just wrote the book on the Depression.
November 6, 2008 at 12:30 pm Ben Alpers It's true that Hoover was not a non-interventionist. It's also true that the forms of intervention he favored were not effective. Hoover also remade himself as a non-interventionist critic of the New Deal after his presidency.
I think most economists look at non-farm unemployment and I think that's what the WSJ is reporting on. This is pertinent because most of the bad government policies mentioned in that article have to do with the non-farm sector (public works and tariffs).
Non-farm unemployment is the more pertinent statistic for many of the topics covered in the WSJ article and 18% is not a good unemployment statistic even if its down from a high of 32% before the New Deal.
Even if it means "non-farm"--which it doesn't credibly mean, in any non-fudging sense--it's still committing Lebergott's dubious practice of counting WPA etc. Second, you really think the WSJ article is about non-farm policies? Looks to me like the entire paragraph on the sins of government intervention (following "the government stepped in") is about agricultural policy. Smoot-Hawley originated, at least in part, as an agricultural relief policy.
eric Oh and: 18% is not a good unemployment statistic even if its down from a high of 32% before the New Deal. That's another dishonest bit about the WSJ piece: saying "as late as 1938 ... remained" kind of slides over the big improvement 1933-1937, doesn't it?
eric Eichengreen on Smoot-Hawley: The figures confirm that the increases bestowed on agriculture were exceptionally large, but the Senate, where agricultural interests were disproporately represented, offered the more generous increases, and in many cases the Senate rates were those ultimately adopted. Of the 887 tariff increases, fully 250 were on agricultural goods.
pushmedia1 Well, ok maybe I'm reading too much sub-text. It seems to me the civilian non-farm unemployment number is most interesting when looking at policy's effect late into the depression. The sub-text to the WSJ article is this: early in the depression government policy created inefficient industries (ie export industries by increasing tariffs). Later in the depression policy encouraged workers to stay-in or move-to those inefficient industries (eg by subsidizing public works and striking deals with some industries to not allow wages to fall) which were basically manufacturing, non-farm industries. This is why non-farm numbers are a better measure of the effectiveness of policy. Farm tariffs were bad for the normal efficiency reasons, but farmers seemed to move out farming into other sectors (at least the total employment of farmers was flat through the whole period while the work force grew substantially). Once farm labor reallocated, the problems caused by the tariffs were mitigated. Also, the article assumes private industry can more efficiently allocate labor resources than government. Under this assumption, civilian (ie not including "emergency" workers) unemployment is the pertinent statistic. I know this assumption sounds all "lazy fairy" but I think its pretty reasonable if you think about it.
Vance Also, the article assumes private industry can more efficiently allocate labor resources than government. Under this assumption, civilian (ie not including "emergency" workers) unemployment is the pertinent statistic. What, only employment that is theoretically wise counts?
November 6, 2008 at 2:57 pm eric It seems to me the civilian non-farm unemployment number is most interesting when looking at policy's effect late into the depression. Okay: but Ba476 isn't "civilian non-farm unemployment," it's "civilian private non-farm unemployment." And as for "late into the depression"--you have to consider the history of relief; WPA--the first permanent relief-worker agency created by the New Deal--wasn't even enacted into law until 1935--because Roosevelt was squeamish about relief employment. So 1937-38 isn't "late" into the depression by that measure. Consider also Keynes's letter to Roosevelt saying that one of the causes of the 37-38 downturn was reducing WPA spending.
eric (Further: I don't have my notes in front of me, but iirc Ba476 is not "usual" civilian unemployment--that's Ba475--Ba476 is the series David Weir specifically constructed to meet Lebergott's objection about counting WPA and other relief workers.
eric I think its pretty reasonable if you think about it Your version of the article is more reasonable than the article. The article is written in hyped-up dishonest op-ed prose that kludges together Hoover and Roosevelt under the heading of "government intervention" which is argued to be bad. Government interventi...
|
http://csua.com/feed/