Obama repeating mistakes of Great Depression

Chapdog

Abreast of the situations
The economic policies of the Obama administration are repeating many of the mistakes made during the Great Depression, according to a study* released today by the Institute of Economic Affairs, and endorsed by Nobel-Prize-winning economist James M. Buchanan.

The authors** argue that there are "troubling similarities" between the approach of the current US government and the disastrous economic policies of President Roosevelt during the 1930s.

By trying to revive the economy with profligate deficit-spending and increased state intervention, Obama is undermining the long-term growth potential of the US economy and risks delaying full economic recovery by several years.

Examining the economic evidence, the study challenges the widely held view that conservative fiscal policies caused the Great Depression and Keynesian fiscal policies brought recovery. Rather, excessively loose monetary policy was the cause of the stock market bubble that burst in 1929, while excessively tight monetary policy was the principal reason that a normal recession turned into a deep depression.

Relaxation of monetary policy was the main reason for a brief and limited recovery after 1933. But, argue the authors,

"FDR’s interventionist policies and draconian tax increases delayed full economic recovery by several years by exacerbating a climate of pessimistic expectations that drove down private capital formation and household consumption to unprecedented lows."

As a result, the US had arguably the deepest and longest-lasting depression of all the major industrial countries in the 1930s.

While this recession appears to be far less severe, current US policies are likely to hamper recovery by crowding out investment and leading to much higher taxes and interest rates in the medium term.

In a damning indictment of Obama’s economic programme, the authors conclude that:

"Now is a particularly bad time to enact socialistic reforms to the market for healthcare, pursue wealth-destructive cap and trade environmental programs, or force additional federal tax dollars into state and local education markets. Such policies imply higher government spending and, eventually, either higher taxes or runaway inflation, thus depleting taxpayer and business confidence in the economy…"

In their recipe for recovery, the authors suggest, that whilst expansionary monetary policy is appropriate to avoid the main mistake in the US in the 1930s, on the micro-economic side there should be a return to the policies of laissez-faire capitalism from which George W. Bush departed in the early years of the twenty-first century: tariffs and other trade barriers should be repealed unilaterally; a ‘Right-to-Work’ Act should reduce the minimum wage and curtail the powers of unions; there should be a return to fiscal conservatism; and business regulation should be reduced. Furthermore, there should be a reform of the approach taken to insolvent banks. Individual banks and their counterparties should not be bailed out, although the system should be protected by ensuring that failing banks are wound up in an orderly fashion – this is the only way to restore market discipline.

http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=release&ID=166
 
I do agree with this statement. Am I the only one this is obvious too? Note: look at my avatar


"Now is a particularly bad time to enact socialistic reforms to the market for healthcare, pursue wealth-destructive cap and trade environmental programs, or force additional federal tax dollars into state and local education markets. Such policies imply higher government spending and, eventually, either higher taxes or runaway inflation, thus depleting taxpayer and business confidence in the economy…"
 
People need to look at the deficit spending going on right now and realize the magnitude of it then add in the push for a world currency which if it was largely accepted would bankrupt the US.
 
People need to look at the deficit spending going on right now and realize the magnitude of it then add in the push for a world currency which if it was largely accepted would bankrupt the US.


The push for a world currency? That's pretty off the deep end there, Chappy.
 
I am paying attention. The likelihood of adopting a world currency is about zero, zilch, nada, none, nil.

The point is that is hardly 'off the deep end' for Chap to state that there is a push for a new reserve currency. There clearly IS a push for just that.

That said, I agree that it is not likely to occur any time soon. The dollar would sink hard and fast and thus hammer those who hold our debt.
 
I am paying attention. The likelihood of adopting a world currency is about zero, zilch, nada, none, nil.

They said that about the euro as well. I do think however eventually we will be on a world currency. The timeline would be regional currency first before world currency.

Obviously the US would holdout like how England has.
 
I don't think there is a real linear comparison between the 2 time periods, or between the methods.

First, I do believe strongly that gov't stimulus spending was necessary; on paper & in practice, it makes very logical sense. We have experienced a time when just about every business has done nothing but reign in spending, and in doing so, has cut jobs & pay, leading to much less consumer spending, leading to more businesses suffering & furthering cost-cutting measures. This is a vicious cycle, and absent outside stimulus, could go on & on, imo.

Second, we're unlikely to see the kind of "draconian" tax increases that FDR implemented. I agree wholeheartedly that these would hurt growth, and if they implement anything along those lines, this admin will completely lose my support.

All of that said, I think cutting gov't spending should be priority #1 once the smoke clears and the economy is back to health and growing of its own accord. I haven't seen real overtures by the admin on this or even words committing to it, which is dismaying.
 
I don't think there is a real linear comparison between the 2 time periods, or between the methods.

First, I do believe strongly that gov't stimulus spending was necessary; on paper & in practice, it makes very logical sense. We have experienced a time when just about every business has done nothing but reign in spending, and in doing so, has cut jobs & pay, leading to much less consumer spending, leading to more businesses suffering & furthering cost-cutting measures. This is a vicious cycle, and absent outside stimulus, could go on & on, imo.

Second, we're unlikely to see the kind of "draconian" tax increases that FDR implemented. I agree wholeheartedly that these would hurt growth, and if they implement anything along those lines, this admin will completely lose my support.

All of that said, I think cutting gov't spending should be priority #1 once the smoke clears and the economy is back to health and growing of its own accord. I haven't seen real overtures by the admin on this or even words committing to it, which is dismaying.

Right, this administration along with its congress are spending fanatics and spending on non fruit bearing federal social (ism) level items unlike previous spending fanatics like Reagan which at least was towards fruit bearing capitalism.

Very scary right now
 
The economic policies of the Obama administration are repeating many of the mistakes made during the Great Depression, according to a study* released today by the Institute of Economic Affairs, and endorsed by Nobel-Prize-winning economist James M. Buchanan.

The authors** argue that there are "troubling similarities" between the approach of the current US government and the disastrous economic policies of President Roosevelt during the 1930s.

By trying to revive the economy with profligate deficit-spending and increased state intervention, Obama is undermining the long-term growth potential of the US economy and risks delaying full economic recovery by several years.

Examining the economic evidence, the study challenges the widely held view that conservative fiscal policies caused the Great Depression and Keynesian fiscal policies brought recovery. Rather, excessively loose monetary policy was the cause of the stock market bubble that burst in 1929, while excessively tight monetary policy was the principal reason that a normal recession turned into a deep depression.

Relaxation of monetary policy was the main reason for a brief and limited recovery after 1933. But, argue the authors,

"FDR’s interventionist policies and draconian tax increases delayed full economic recovery by several years by exacerbating a climate of pessimistic expectations that drove down private capital formation and household consumption to unprecedented lows."

As a result, the US had arguably the deepest and longest-lasting depression of all the major industrial countries in the 1930s.

While this recession appears to be far less severe, current US policies are likely to hamper recovery by crowding out investment and leading to much higher taxes and interest rates in the medium term.

In a damning indictment of Obama’s economic programme, the authors conclude that:

"Now is a particularly bad time to enact socialistic reforms to the market for healthcare, pursue wealth-destructive cap and trade environmental programs, or force additional federal tax dollars into state and local education markets. Such policies imply higher government spending and, eventually, either higher taxes or runaway inflation, thus depleting taxpayer and business confidence in the economy…"

In their recipe for recovery, the authors suggest, that whilst expansionary monetary policy is appropriate to avoid the main mistake in the US in the 1930s, on the micro-economic side there should be a return to the policies of laissez-faire capitalism from which George W. Bush departed in the early years of the twenty-first century: tariffs and other trade barriers should be repealed unilaterally; a ‘Right-to-Work’ Act should reduce the minimum wage and curtail the powers of unions; there should be a return to fiscal conservatism; and business regulation should be reduced. Furthermore, there should be a reform of the approach taken to insolvent banks. Individual banks and their counterparties should not be bailed out, although the system should be protected by ensuring that failing banks are wound up in an orderly fashion – this is the only way to restore market discipline.

http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=release&ID=166
The problem I have with your premis is that this is not nor has been remotely close to the economic crises of the great depression. Are you not comparing apples to oranges? Is it not possible that the Keynesian influenced policy decisions implemented by both Bush and Obama prevented the ecnomic meltdown from spiraling into an economic depression?

Buchannon is a well regarded economist, to state the obvious, as well as a well known opponent to Keynesian economics which many economist claim brought most of the western world out of the great depression. I just don't believe that Buchannon's ideas have passed the test of time as has Keynes.
 
Last edited:
The economic policies of the Obama administration are repeating many of the mistakes made during the Great Depression, according to a study* released today by the Institute of Economic Affairs, and endorsed by Nobel-Prize-winning economist James M. Buchanan.

The authors** argue that there are "troubling similarities" between the approach of the current US government and the disastrous economic policies of President Roosevelt during the 1930s.

By trying to revive the economy with profligate deficit-spending and increased state intervention, Obama is undermining the long-term growth potential of the US economy and risks delaying full economic recovery by several years.

Examining the economic evidence, the study challenges the widely held view that conservative fiscal policies caused the Great Depression and Keynesian fiscal policies brought recovery. Rather, excessively loose monetary policy was the cause of the stock market bubble that burst in 1929, while excessively tight monetary policy was the principal reason that a normal recession turned into a deep depression.

Relaxation of monetary policy was the main reason for a brief and limited recovery after 1933. But, argue the authors,

"FDR’s interventionist policies and draconian tax increases delayed full economic recovery by several years by exacerbating a climate of pessimistic expectations that drove down private capital formation and household consumption to unprecedented lows."

As a result, the US had arguably the deepest and longest-lasting depression of all the major industrial countries in the 1930s.

While this recession appears to be far less severe, current US policies are likely to hamper recovery by crowding out investment and leading to much higher taxes and interest rates in the medium term.

In a damning indictment of Obama’s economic programme, the authors conclude that:

"Now is a particularly bad time to enact socialistic reforms to the market for healthcare, pursue wealth-destructive cap and trade environmental programs, or force additional federal tax dollars into state and local education markets. Such policies imply higher government spending and, eventually, either higher taxes or runaway inflation, thus depleting taxpayer and business confidence in the economy…"

In their recipe for recovery, the authors suggest, that whilst expansionary monetary policy is appropriate to avoid the main mistake in the US in the 1930s, on the micro-economic side there should be a return to the policies of laissez-faire capitalism from which George W. Bush departed in the early years of the twenty-first century: tariffs and other trade barriers should be repealed unilaterally; a ‘Right-to-Work’ Act should reduce the minimum wage and curtail the powers of unions; there should be a return to fiscal conservatism; and business regulation should be reduced. Furthermore, there should be a reform of the approach taken to insolvent banks. Individual banks and their counterparties should not be bailed out, although the system should be protected by ensuring that failing banks are wound up in an orderly fashion – this is the only way to restore market discipline.

http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=release&ID=166

Up is down, right is left.

The only problem with Roosevelt's policy is that it wasn't nearly large enough. We only got the spending we need in WWII.

The right complained all throughout the thirties about spending, so it was kept low, and inflation, while deflation was up to 10%. Roosevelt was an economic illiterate, and so the depression continued for a decade. Hopefully we ignore you guys now.
 
I do agree with this statement. Am I the only one this is obvious too? Note: look at my avatar


"Now is a particularly bad time to enact socialistic reforms to the market for healthcare, pursue wealth-destructive cap and trade environmental programs, or force additional federal tax dollars into state and local education markets. Such policies imply higher government spending and, eventually, either higher taxes or runaway inflation, thus depleting taxpayer and business confidence in the economy…"

Since their being funded through debt, this is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Second, we're unlikely to see the kind of "draconian" tax increases that FDR implemented. I agree wholeheartedly that these would hurt growth, and if they implement anything along those lines, this admin will completely lose my support.

Actually Hoover mainly increased taxes, from like a 20% marginal rate to 65%. At the same time he cut spending by DRACONIAN amounts. Surprisingly, the government went even further into debt the next year. Trying to cut spending or raise taxes to cover the budget hole will leave us further than in the hole than continuing spending at the current amounts - the paradox of thrift.
 
Back
Top