pater_tenebrarum

Prime Minister Rudd's Growth Gap Myth

'The classical / Austrian ideology is still alive and well, decades after Andrew Mellon and Herbert Hoover's hands-off approach, protectionism, and monetary contraction in the midst of depression should have killed it. '

You should brush up on your history. Hoover was the first big interventionist - during his reign, the Federal Government's deficit soared to an unprecedented record high. FDR called him a 'spendthrift' during the election campaign - only to pick up right where Hoover left off. The idea that Hoover was using a 'laissez faire' approach has been thoroughly demolished in Rothbard's 'America's Great Depression' , which focuses on the Hoover years. As an aside, protectionism is as un-Austrian a policy as there can be. Austrian economists are practically the only ones advocating genuine free trade. Also, the Fed pumped up its balance sheet by 98% annualized between 1929 and 1932 - in other words, it engaged in frantic monetary pumping - bank reserves outside of the Fed's control shrank in spite of it. So the widely accepted story that the 'Fed failed to pump' is a falsehood as well.

For a brief overview of Hoover the interventionist, go to:

www.acting-man.com/200...

what the modern statist propaganda preaches about Hoover is basically a lie. funny enough, in the time of Hoover and FDR the true facts were well known and there was heated debate about them. somehow, historical revisionism managed to change all that.





On Feb 18 02:49 PM Chris B wrote:

> The classical / Austrian ideology is still alive and well, decades
> after Andrew Mellon and Herbert Hoover's hands-off approach, protectionism,
> and monetary contraction in the midst of depression should have killed
> it.
>
> Yes, we should study history and do our homework. The experiences
> of the great depression and recovery, the Japan deflation, &
> the Swedish bank crisis tell us exactly what the results of different
> policies will be.
>
> Classical/Austrian view --> great depression
>
> Weak, cheap, tiny, and mostly symbolic stimulus/reform attempts -->
> Japan's lost decade
>
> Massive govt. intervention or reform --> Sweden's successful recovery,
> US during late depression / WW2
>
> I'm all for dissenting views and criticism, but this article ignores
> or distorts both facts and history in favor of clever slogans and
> a misunderstanding of economic terms (i.e. inflation), which makes
> it the typical internet banter. The Weimer hyperinflation was caused
> by forced reparation payments under threat of military force, not
> Keynsian stimulus attempts. The last sentence establishes that this
> is a political rant, not an economic analysis.
>
> Brief Sweden info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Still Blaming the Market Victims

i agree with this article 100%. one can not spend one's way to prosperity. if that were the case, Zimbabwe would be a utopia of riches.
i have recently taken Krugman to task as well:

www.acting-man.com/200...