With both Barack Obama's supporters and the media looking forward to the new administration's policies being similar to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's policies during the 1930s depression, it may be useful to look at just what those policies were and— more important— what their consequences were.
The prevailing view in many quarters is that the stock market crash of 1929 was a failure of the free market that led to massive unemployment in the 1930s— and that it was intervention of Roosevelt's New Deal policies that rescued the economy.
It is such a good story that it seems a pity to spoil it with facts. Yet there is something to be said for not repeating the catastrophes of the past.
Let's start at square one, with the stock market crash in October 1929. Was this what led to massive unemployment?
Official government statistics suggest otherwise. So do new statistics on unemployment by two current scholars, Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway, in their book "Out of Work."
The Vedder and Gallaway statistics allow us to follow unemployment month by month. They put the unemployment rate at 5 percent in November 1929, a month after the stock market crash. It hit 9 percent in December— but then began a generally downward trend, subsiding to 6.3 percent in June 1930.
That was when the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were passed, against the advice of economists across the country, who warned of dire consequences.
Five months after the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, the unemployment rate hit double digits for the first time in the 1930s.
This was more than a year after the stock market crash. Moreover, the unemployment rate rose to even higher levels under both Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt, both of whom intervened in the economy on an unprecedented scale.
Before the Great Depression, it was not considered to be the business of the federal government to try to get the economy out of a depression. But the Smoot-Hawley tariff— designed to save American jobs by restricting imports— was one of Hoover's interventions, followed by even bigger interventions by FDR.
The rise in unemployment after the stock market crash of 1929 was a blip on the screen compared to the soaring unemployment rates reached later, after a series of government interventions.
For nearly three consecutive years, beginning in February 1932, the unemployment rate never fell below 20 percent for any month before January 1935, when it fell to 19.3 percent, according to the Vedder and Gallaway statistics.
In other words, the evidence suggests that it was not the "problem" of the financial crisis in 1929 that caused massive unemployment but politicians' attempted "solutions." Is that the history that we seem to be ready to repeat?
The stock market crash, which has been blamed for the widespread suffering during the Great Depression of the 1930s, created no unemployment rate that was even half of what was created in the wake of the government interventions of Hoover and FDR.
Politically, however, Franklin D.
Roosevelt could not have been more successful. After all, he was the only President of the United States elected four times in a row. He was a master of political rhetoric.
If Barack Obama wants political success, following in the footsteps of FDR looks like the way to go. But people who are concerned about the economy need to take a closer look at history. We deserve something better than repeating the 1930s disasters.
There is yet another factor that provides a parallel to what happened during the Great Depression. No matter how much worse things got after government intervention under Roosevelt's New Deal policies, the party line was that he had to "do something" to get us out of the disaster created by the failure of the unregulated market and Hoover's "do nothing" policies.
Today, increasing numbers of scholars recognize that FDR's own policies were a further extension of interventions begun under Hoover. Moreover, the temporary rise in unemployment after the stock market crash was nowhere near the massive and long-lasting unemployment after government interventions.
Barack Obama already has his Herbert Hoover to blame for any and all disasters that his policies create: George W. Bush.
To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

|
 |
Comments
|
3 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
What a study in ignorance this column is. The ways in which Roosevelt intervened, and particularly the ways that failed, have been one of the major focuses of the dialog now as world economic leaders struggle to get ahead of this curve. The fact is that some of the ways in which the Roosevelt administration intervened, as seems to have seeped into the edges of Sowell's consciousness, did set us back. Other interventions helped, i.e., the campaigns to use government spending like the New Deal programs as stimulus, although they were not sufficiently sustained to overcome their incompatibility with other measure taken. Of course, the intervention that really made the difference was World War II and the massive campaign of government spending and stimulus it caused. Essentially, what the consensus among world economists is now is that our only hope is to implement World War II levels of government-directed stimulus without the war part. Nice idea, but it could lead to something like socialism, and that would make Mr. Sowell very sad.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Masako
Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:45 AM
|
|
|
|
Bankruptcy is the only choice for these 'greedy, non-caring, lack of common
knowledge, high-dollar fat cats' as without re-organizing, backing up and
thinking for a change, their disasters will put America into Bankruptcy! Then what
happens to America's future?
Government, on all levels, must run like a private business, eliminating jobs,
cutting salaries and freebies, or our children won't have a future!
Bailouts shouldn't be an option for Freddie, Fannie, AIG, Big 3 or anyone else
taking Taxpayers' money! AIG, two weeks after it received $85 billion, senior
executives took a $440,000.00 resort trip. CEO is now taking a $1 a year salary!
Yeah right? He insists on providing $400 million in "retention" bonuses for 2,000
in upper management. On average, that's a $200,000.00 present! Come to think
of it, their lack of common knowledge, greed, and I don't care attitude, helped
promote Nafta and Cafta which wound up eliminating jobs! Even to a dummy,
this means "time to cut production on automobiles, stop building houses, as
people no longer have jobs to pay for anything! Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
figure this out!
Taxpayers will give politicians, CEOS, and other fat cats a couple choices "A
one-way ticket across the ocean with only the clothes on their backs, as their
bank accounts, homes, and anything else of value belongs to Taxpayers and
must be used to pay off trillions of dollars of debt they're sticking Taxpayers
with!" OR, a recent cartoon, put them in state jails (not federal country clubs) and
throw away the keys!
While I'm on a roll,"Why would these high-dollar criminals think they're Royalty?"
You can't make a 'Silk Purse' from a 'Pig's Ear'! They're not as good as the ones
the court system, puts in state jails, daily, for robberies, forgeries, and fraud!
Comment: #2
Posted by: Shirley deLong
Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:50 PM
|
|
|
|
Mr. Sowell:
Below is a copy of an email sent to David Sirota in a response to an article he wrote concerning this very subject. The offer contained therein applies to you as well.
Calvin
Mr. Sirota:
Having just read an article by Thomas Sowell (“Another Great Depression?”), I read your article (FDR Prolonged the Depression? Really?) with the preconceived notion that unemployment went up due to government intervention and not the market crash. As your article lead me in just the opposite direction, I came away confused once again. Attempting to get at the truth by reading factual(?) articles by seemingly intelligent people on both sides of an argument might not be such a good idea. As this is history we may, or may not, want to repeat it is important to get it right. I did some research on the Internet but could not find any sources (only spent about 45 minutes) that had unemployment figures earlier than 1948. This leads me to believe earlier figures would have to be generated by historical research. I would love to see a graph of actual numbers and their source. You stated that that unemployment declined almost every year in Roosevelt's first two terms. This sounds great. Mr. Sowell's source said this decline was very slow and never dropped below 20 percent. This does not sound so great.
I have a proposal. I will try to get a copy of this email to Mr. Sowell as well. If either of you can produce a graph of unemployment numbers from just beyond the start of the great Depression until recent times based on reliable sources, I will send you my prized Sammy Sosa bobblehead. If you both respond, we will have to talk. I will miss Sammy if either of you do respond. I assume you can get my email through this web site. I will make another offer as well. One thing I have learned is that no matter how crazy this life seems, I believe it is a blessing and we should enjoy it. As you both are obviously intelligent people I will treat each of you to dinner in our award winning downtown area if you are ever anywhere near Greenville, SC. This meal will include alcoholic beverages as I will make the assumption that those who write about our illustrious leaders in Washington do need a stiff drink every once in a while. I believe both diners would be very interesting and certainly worth the investment. If you both happen to be in town at the same time we will have to talk, as that threesome at the dinner table might be too interesting.
Calvin
Comment: #3
Posted by: calvin
Tue Jan 6, 2009 1:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|