Murray Rothbard's "America's Great Depression" has probably the best analysis of Hoover's proto "New Deal" policies. It's very enlightening if you were taught as I was that Hoover did nothing while the depression ravaged the nation.
As I understand it, Hoover was preoccupied with maintaining a balanced federal budget through budget cuts and tax increases. That's the opposite of countercyclical spending, which along with some welfare state components made up the new deal. Maybe he was on board with the welfare state and the idea of people having high wages (who isn't?), but the government doesn't cut the majority of paychecks in the country, and those it does cut, he was, well, cutting. In regards to the Depression, he was pretty diametrically opposed to what the New Deal became.
You might have a book that says otherwise, but I've read several books that disagree with you. You've got a pretty high burden of proof to make that statement.
Hoover was the main force in the Harding administration to respond to the crisis of 1920-21 which Harding wisely ignored. The contraction in the economy was very severe but we recovered quickly and no one remembers it--except Austrian economists like Rothbard.
And considering the lengths Roosevelt was willing to go to I'm not surprised Hoover didn't like all of The New Deal. I'm not sure Hoover or anyone else saw the seizing of all gold coming. I'm not sure why history forgives him for that act of theft.
I have read another book that said that the early new deals program and regulatory framework were essentially made by insider players, who wrote the rulebooks to fit their business operations. Suddenly, you would have a few entrepreneurs and businessmen, jailed because they do a few things differently.
For example, from my fallible memory, a businessman who sold tires has to compete with Goodyear, who have locations around the country. In order for his business to survive, he must sell his tries cheaper than Goodyears does. However, he got fined because Goodyear wrote the regulation rules for the tire industry.
Which one is more likely in your opinion? The image of government programs being an entirely benevolent operation put forward by FDR, or political machines benefiting some people more than others, sometime at the expenses of one another?
If I got a job with the work progress administration, I might be inclined to vote for FDR because he gave me a job, not whether or not if the work progress administration benefit the economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Debt1929-50.jpg
It is true, however, that he raised taxes on the rich. Sound like anyone we know?
You got it backwards. In fact FDR campaigned against Hoover's deficit spending.
Once in office, FDR reversed course and doubled-down on Hoover's approach.
Hoover and FDR shared a belief that excess production was the problem - that's why both pushed govt programs to restrict it. That's what put the "Great" in "Great Depression". (Previous panics didn't last nearly as long.) FDR didn't back off until the approaching WWII made it obvious that an "Arsenal of Democracy" had to actually produce massive amounts of stuff.
FWIW, Congressional Repubs at the time voted overwhelmingly for Social Security.
Are we voting for goodness or troll points? I get confused.
The biggest problem we have is the obsession with GDP instead of trying to measure things like wealth creation - which is precisely what Henry Ford was in the business of.
So word of advice... don't take advice from Henry Ford.
I think highly dyslexic is a better description than illiterate for Henry Ford, he was a genius.
Pioneered material science, machining and forming metal cost effectively, made the assembly line, 161 patents, created enormous opportunity for hard working and smart people, brought cars to the masses.
His political feelings should be put in context, he had a great relationship with Germany before the war, FDR was massively increasing the size of gov't and creating entitlements with the New Deal (something few business pioneers would be for) and during the war, there was talk of FDR taking over the company he built to produce war goods for a foreign war he opposed intervening in.
Ford however, was one of the few who "took sides". They didn't just support the Nazis for economic reasons ( which is pretty damned horrific ), they actually hindered allied production purposefully.
Also, he got lucky. He built one of the first car companies and he did a good job at first. End result is he ended up being one of the big 3. Every industry has em. He was in the right place at the right time. From then on he had a large enough enterprise that it could run itself, all he had to do was sit back and not get too involved. Which he couldn't do. He nearly bankrupted the company and embarked on a bunch of inglorious economic escapades resulting in him being kicked out of the Ford.
I mean... jesus, who the hell taught you people history? How can you possibly look up to this guy FOR ANYTHING. He was a bull headed arrogant deceitful bastard who tried very hard to quite literally destroy his own country and his people.
Moral judgment and proficiency are two different things. Ford was a brilliant industrialist who happened to be an anti-Semite. It doesn't mean we can't learn from his example, though we might think twice before we build massive statues of him.
People aren't "good" or "evil". People are complex. If you ignore someone just because you dislike some of their ideas, you'll ignore pretty much everyone.
Also it's incredibly unfair to judge someone without taking into account the political and social climate while they were alive.
Bernays pioneered many modern advertising techniques. He created demand where none existed prior, typically though psychological means. Torches of Freedom is a famous example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom
Supposedly, he also had a hand in convincing the public that water fluoridation was safe and beneficial to human health, on behalf of Alcoa, and in concert w/ the American Dental Association. Does anyone have a primary source for that one?
That is pretty evil mastermind... he's thinking on a whole other level.
"[The well-managed business'] workmen have the leisure to enjoy life and the wherewithal with which to finance that enjoyment."
Ford theorizes that greater amounts of leisure time and better pay for workers are good for both the workers, for their enjoyment, and the employers, for having larger markets; I don't see this as evil.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20861910/The-Search-for-God-and-Gu...
Just saw this, I haven't given it a listen yer, but I do intend to. Looks fun:
http://www.thedigitalhubelevate.com/memoirs_of_guinness
Also Guinness makes their employment archives available to descendents of past workers, which is pretty neat:
How many times industrial technology has doubled its efficiency since then?
Why Americans still work as much as then (or even more)? Where the benefits of having better industrial technology went? Is your daily life that much better than life in 1926? Does cost of any advanced piece of equipment that you use now in your life that did not exist back then justifies all of your effort multiplied by our incredible technology that seems to be be missing?
Aren't Americans much wealthier today than 84 years ago? Hasn't the work paid off materially? I play with data for fun all day and live comfortably. My grandfathers worked like dogs and were poor. Isn't this a common story?
I think a lot of people don't share your story and don't play with data for fun all day. Instead they still put 40 hours/week plus unpaid overtime into a job they hate that makes them unpleasantly tired.
We try to pay a man what he is worth and we are not inclined to keep a man who is not worth more than the minimum wage.
I like Ford's approach but he would not be impressed with how restricting the ability to lay off low value workers has damaged our economy. People are even put off of hiring knowing that they might be paying higher unemployment insurance at the end of it, and Europe was dominated (and weighed down) by trade unions for a long time.
"we can get at least as great production in five days as we can in six"
Smart man. By working them shorter hours, he could work them harder.
"The people with a five day week will consume more goods than the people with a six day week"
"the people would not have the time to consume the goods produced. For instance, a workman would have little use for an automobile if he had to be in the shops from dawn until dusk"
Genius!
goes to show that progress depends on seemingly unreasonable men.
