Andrew Leonard: Herbert Hoover: The working man's heroRoundup: Talking About History
I did not need a cup of coffee to wake up this morning -- I just checked my e-mail, and saw the subject header:"Hoover's pro-labor stance helped cause Great Depression, UCLA economist says."
Without reading the message, I knew instantly who the economist must be -- Lee Ohanian, a tireless Great Depression/New Deal revisionist whose work is oft-cited by Amity Shlaes, the author of"The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression." Last we saw of Ohanian at How the World Works, he was arguing that FDR's New Deal policies extended the Great Depression and resulted in"less work than average" for American workers. Which might be true, if you don't count anyone who got a job through"the Works Progress Administration (WPA) or Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), or any other of Roosevelt's popular New Deal workfare programs." Makes sense -- if you don't count Roosevelt's pro-labor programs, he doesn't end up very pro-labor!
So now we have"What -- or Who -- Started the Great Depression?," a 68-page paper Ohanian has been working on for four years that is sure to become a never-to-be-extinguished talking point for New Deal haters, union-busters, and opponents of all kinds of government intervention in the economy. Here are some key points, taken from the press release pushed out by UCLA.
Pro-labor policies pushed by President Herbert Hoover after the stock market crash of 1929 accounted for close to two-thirds of the drop in the nation's gross domestic product over the two years that followed, causing what might otherwise have been a bad recession to slip into the Great Depression, a UCLA economist concludes in a new study."These findings suggest that the recession was three times worse -- at a minimum -- than it would otherwise have been, because of Hoover," said Lee E. Ohanian, a UCLA professor of economics.
According to Ohanian, these pro-labor policies including pressure for job-sharing and propping up wages handcuffed industry's ability to respond flexibly to the post-crash economic contraction.
After the crash, Hoover met with major leaders of industry and cut a deal with them to either maintain or raise wages and institute job-sharing to keep workers employed, at least to some degree, Ohanian found. In response, General Motors, Ford, U.S. Steel, Dupont, International Harvester and many other large firms fell in line, even publicly underscoring their compliance with Hoover's program."By keeping industrial wages too high, Hoover sharply depressed employment beyond where it otherwise would have been, and that act drove down the overall gross national product," Ohanian said."His policy was the single most important event in precipitating the Great Depression."
Hoover as the pro-labor liberal! Never mind that Hoover spent decades after his spectacularly failed presidency bemoaning the country's New Deal turn to Bolshevism. And never mind that the definitive conservative economic treatment of the Great Depression, Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz's"A Monetary History of the United States," pinpoints monetary policy mistakes by the Federal Reserve as the crucial catalyst that turned a stock market crash and recession into a Depression. Never mind the now-fading cultural memory of the United States, which somehow remembers Hoover as being bad for labor, and Roosevelt being good. All that pales against the necessity of making a key political point relevant to today's financial crisis...
comments powered by Disqus
Donald Wolberg - 9/4/2009
It is amazing how little agreement there is about those things which should have some decision ability substance. Of course many if not most of the New Deal programs of FDR provided a brief economic uptick and was rahter rapidly followed by a return plunge into ecnomic misery. And of course, the industrial might of the Nation was unleashed by World War II and a return to overfull employment, explosive factory production of everything that was needed not just for America, but for all the allies. Even further, there was total utilization of agriculture, explosive growth of mining, campus research funded as never before, medical research funded as never before and on and on. The war save the nation, not the New Deal.
Donald A. Ritchie - 9/4/2009
Although trying to pin the Depression on "pro-labor" policies is inflammatory, there is validity to the argument that Hoover was well-intentioned but misguided. He held well-publicized meetings where he "jawboned" industrialists into holding the line on wages, arguing that retrenchment would depress the economy. Larger employers pledged cooperation, but when consumer demand fell they cut working hours and laid off employees. The problem was not wage stability, since falling prices boosted purchasing power. Instead it was the threat of unemployment that discouraged consumer spending beyond necessities.
- Brexit will ultimately destabilise Europe, historians fear
- The Justinianic Plague's Devastating Impact Was Likely Exaggerated
- 'Human, vulnerable and perfect': New Rosa Parks exhibit shines light on civil rights legend
- How Charlottesville’s Echoes Forced New Zealand to Confront Its History
- Mary Thompson Featured in Article on George Washington's Dog Breeding
- China Releases History Professor, But Travel Concerns Persist
- Gordon Wood Interviewed on the New York Times’ 1619 Project
- Books by Garret Martin, Balazs Martonffy, Ronald Suny, and Kelly McFarland Featured in Article on NATO at 50
- The secret history of women in America, told through their belongings
- Irish Archive Recreates Documents Lost in in 1922 fire