Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Fake History of the Depression
http://mises.org/story/3426 ^ | Robert P. Murphy

Posted on 04/23/2009 6:42:53 AM PDT by big black dog

Since late 2007, more and more commentators have drawn parallels between our current financial crisis and the Great Depression. Nobel laureates and presidential advisors confidently proclaim that it was Herbert Hoover's laissez-faire penny pinching that exacerbated the Depression, and that the American economy was saved only when FDR boldly ran up enormous deficits to fight the Nazis. But as I document in my new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, this official history is utterly false.

Let's first set the record straight on Herbert Hoover's fiscal policies. Contrary to what you have heard and read over the last year, Hoover behaved as a textbook Keynesian after the stock-market crash. He immediately cut income tax rates by one percentage point (applicable to the 1929 tax year) and began ratcheting up federal spending, increasing it 42 percent from fiscal year (FY) 1930 to FY 1932.

But to truly appreciate Hoover's Keynesian bona fides, we must realize that this enormous jump in spending occurred amidst a collapse in tax receipts, due both to the decline in economic activity as well as the price deflation of the early 1930s. This combination led to unprecedented peacetime deficits under the Hoover administration — something FDR railed against during the 1932 campaign!

How big were Hoover's deficits? Well, his predecessor Calvin Coolidge had run a budget surplus every single year of his own presidency, and he held the federal budget roughly constant despite the roaring prosperity (and surging tax receipts) of the 1920s. In contrast to Coolidge — who was a true small-government president — Herbert Hoover managed to turn his initial $700 million surplus into a $2.6 billion deficit by 1932.

It's true, that doesn't sound like a big number today; Henry Paulson handed out more to bankers by breakfast. But keep in mind that Hoover's $2.6 billion deficit occurred because he spent $4.6 billion while only taking in $2 billion in tax receipts. Thus, as a percentage of the overall budget, the 1932 deficit was astounding — it would translate into a $3.3 trillion deficit in 2007 (instead of the actual deficit of $162 billion that year). For another angle, I note that Hoover's 1932 deficit was 4 percent of GDP, hardly the record of a Neanderthal budget cutter.

The real reason unemployment soared throughout Hoover's term was not his aversion to deficits, or his infatuation with the gold standard. No, the one thing that set Hoover apart from all previous US presidents was his insistence to big business that they not cut wage rates in response to the economic collapse. Hoover held a faulty notion that workers' purchasing power was the source of an economy's strength, and so it seemed to him that it would set in motion a vicious cycle if businesses began laying off workers and slashing paychecks because of slackening demand.

The results speak for themselves. During the heartless "liquidationist" era before Hoover, depressions (or "panics") were typically over within two years. Yes, it was surely no fun for workers to see their paychecks shrink quite rapidly, but it ensured a quick recovery, and, in any event, the blow was cushioned because prices in general would fall too.

So what was the fate of the worker during the allegedly compassionate Hoover era, when "enlightened" business leaders maintained wage rates amidst falling prices and profits? Well, Econ 101 tells us that higher prices lead to a smaller amount purchased. Because workers' "real wages" (i.e., nominal pay adjusted for price deflation) rose more quickly in the early 1930s than they had even during the Roaring Twenties, businesses couldn't afford to hire as many workers. That's why unemployment rates shot up to an inconceivable 28 percent by March 1933.

"This is all very interesting," the skeptical reader might say, "but it's undeniable that the huge spending of World War II pulled America out of the Depression. So it's clear Herbert Hoover didn't spend enough money."

Ah, here we come to one of the greatest myths in economic history, the alleged "fact" that US military spending fixed the economy. In my book I relied very heavily on the pioneering revisionist work of Bob Higgs, who has shown in several articles and books that the US economy was mired in depression until 1946, when the federal government finally relaxed its grip on the country's resources and workers.

For a fuller exposition, you'll (naturally) have to buy my book. But here's the quick summary: Sure, unemployment rates dropped sharply after the United States began drafting men into the armed forces. Is that so surprising? By the same token, if Obama wanted to reduce unemployment today, he could take two million laid-off workers, equip them with arm floaties, and send them to fight pirates. Voilà! The unemployment rate would fall.

The official government measures of rising GDP during the war years is also misleading. GDP figures include government spending, and so the massive military outlays were lumped into the numbers, even though $1 million spent on tanks is hardly the same indication of true economic output as $1 million spent by households on cars.

On top of that distortion, Higgs reminds us that the government instituted price controls during the war. Normally, if the Fed prints up a bunch of money to allow the government to buy massive quantities of goods (such as munitions and bombers, in this case), the CPI would go through the roof. Then when the economic statisticians tabulated the nominal GDP figures, they would adjust them downward because of the hike in the cost of living, so that "inflation adjusted" (real) GDP would not look as impressive. But this adjustment couldn't occur, because the government made it illegal for the CPI to go through the roof. So those official measures showing "real GDP" rising during World War II are as phony as the Soviet Union's announcements of industrial achievements.

I have only scratched the surface in this article of all the myths surrounding the Great Depression and the New Deal era. For example, we are also constantly told — this time by Chicago economists, not Keynesians — that "we learned in the Depression" that the Fed needs to rapidly expand the monetary base to avert disaster. Oops, turns out that's bogus too. But you'll have to buy my book to learn why.


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 04/23/2009 6:42:53 AM PDT by big black dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: big black dog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENm44TufWuw


2 posted on 04/23/2009 6:44:39 AM PDT by Doogle (USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big black dog

....anybody who wants to know how your grandparents lived during the Depression should read Frederick Lewis Allen’s “Only Yesterday”....it’s very readable and will give you a deeper appreciation of what your ancestors went thru.


3 posted on 04/23/2009 6:51:06 AM PDT by STONEWALLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big black dog

Interesting.


4 posted on 04/23/2009 6:52:13 AM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big black dog

The wage freezes also gave us employer paid health care.


5 posted on 04/23/2009 6:52:46 AM PDT by RobRoy (Sorry for typos. I get the cast off Wednesday.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STONEWALLS

Great book recommendation. I just re-read it. Well-written, with good insight on a very different time.


6 posted on 04/23/2009 6:53:45 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (American Revolution II -- overdue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: big black dog
Previous discussion at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2234771/posts

ML/NJ

7 posted on 04/23/2009 6:55:23 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big black dog

Thanks for posting.


8 posted on 04/23/2009 6:55:40 AM PDT by all the best
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big black dog

So both Keynesians AND monetarists are wrong.. one has to actually offer some sort of thesis as to what happened before I fork over my $$ for a book like that.

Also from monetarist point of view what was learned is not that we need to expand the money supply but that it should not be let to shrink fast. Actually expanding it to stimulate things is a separate issue


9 posted on 04/23/2009 7:01:31 AM PDT by dimk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big black dog

BFL


10 posted on 04/23/2009 7:03:24 AM PDT by Skooz (Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

Ping


11 posted on 04/23/2009 7:12:03 AM PDT by diamond6 (Is SIDS preventable? www.Stopsidsnow.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STONEWALLS
I don't need to read a book. My parents told me. They were both born in 1915. I only know one of my grandparents, as the other three passed away before I was born.
12 posted on 04/23/2009 7:15:40 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: big black dog

bump


13 posted on 04/23/2009 7:23:25 AM PDT by PLMerite ("Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing from it." Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big black dog
Interesting
Herbert Hoover was President Warren Harding's Commerce Secretary in the 1921 recession. I recall reading that Hoover didn't like Harding's handling of the '21 recession, even though it was over in 12-18 months. Hoover obviously thought he knew better, he extended his recession 2-3 years and lost his reelection bid and the recession became a depression. (with help from FDR)

Regards,
Bonehead

14 posted on 04/23/2009 7:28:01 AM PDT by BoneHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BoneHead

Harding has been given a terribly undeserved reputation as an awful President.


15 posted on 04/23/2009 7:42:17 AM PDT by big black dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: STONEWALLS

Are there any books available on how ‘Main Street’ businesses reacted to FDR’s policies?
There were many during the GD that went to jail because they did not follow the NRA guidelines as I understand, and resented greatly the government intervention. Then there were those who found they could profit with FRD’s policies.
But were the sentiments the same back then as now concerning business? As Ray Moley discovered in order to have economic ‘central planning’, you would need a police state. The rules were/are being so changed to punish the productive that many businesses withdrew and decided to wait them out. (Such as the ‘Capital Strike’ as FDR called it, leading to a ‘undistributed profits tax’)

Many small business owners such as myself are refusing to participate in ‘Obamanomics’.


16 posted on 04/23/2009 7:45:45 AM PDT by griswold3 (a good story is more compelling than the search for truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: big black dog
Harding was not only 'not an awful President', he was a cocksman of the first order dying in the saddle at San Francisco's Palace Hotel. Harding died from what we now call an aneurism and the newspapers kept the local gal out of the story, but she went on to claim some fame in her later years as a senior hostess working with Sausalito madam Sally Stanford.

BTW, best Depression book is Forgotten Man, by Amity Shlaes.

17 posted on 04/23/2009 7:56:42 AM PDT by masadaman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: griswold3; SoCal Pubbie; ClearCase_guy

“Are there any books available on how ‘Main Street’ businesses reacted to FDR’s policies?”

....I don’t know except that Main Street was slow to react to the Crash of ‘29 because at first there was no noticable change across Anerica....the attitude was “so what if Wall Street crashed, Main Street is still OK”...then slowly thru 1930 and 1931 and half of 1932 things got worse and worse and worse....I think that’s where we are today....it’s a slow spiral down and down until a bottom is finally in.

......I appalaud your rejection of Obamanomics and wish you well.


18 posted on 04/23/2009 8:19:29 AM PDT by STONEWALLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: big black dog

ping


19 posted on 04/23/2009 2:18:33 PM PDT by BruCru (I think, therefore I am conservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STONEWALLS

I’ve had that book for over a decade, haven’t picked it up since I first read it. I think I’ll revisit it, thank you for the suggestion. And your post reminded me I still need to order The Forgotten Man and American Progressivism, so thanks for that too.


20 posted on 04/24/2009 12:53:35 PM PDT by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson