Thank you, Dave, I’m so happy to have you do that. Once you’ve read Dave’s post, let me add a couple things:
1) Herbert Hoover was, in fact, a “progressive” within the 1910s definition of the word. But it’s famously true that there were many kinds of progressive. It’s also well known that some progressives supported the New Deal, while some opposed it.
2) To describe Hoover as an “interventionist” and therefore in the same mode as Roosevelt is just so profoundly stupid it’s hard to know what to say about it. As Dave points out, for much of his presidency Hoover’s “intervention” consisted of saying, “rah rah, go economy go!” And yes, when pressed to the very limit in an election year with a Democratic House Hoover backed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in 1932. Even then, though, the RFC did not act nearly so aggressively as it did under Roosevelt, under whom it bought bank equity and funded all kinds of other New Deal programs.
You see, some interventions might be effective, while some might be ineffective. As a smart guy said, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works”.
On which point:
27 comments
January 29, 2009 at 1:48 pm
davenoon
I forgot to put the “Today We Are All Eric Rauchway” tag on that post….
January 29, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Jason B.
I don’t know–the graph isn’t all that clear on who had what effect, if any . . .
January 29, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Jay C
Obviously the graph shows merely that Herbert Hoover left office just before the economy began to turn around! All a matter of (bad) timing…
January 29, 2009 at 3:08 pm
pidgas
“As a smart guy said, ‘The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works’.”
Rube-Goldberg machines “work.” It’s not really about that at all.
January 29, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Vance
pidgas, could you unpack that point? The reason “Rube Goldberg” is an insult when applied to real machinery is that complicated mechanisms don’t work as well as simple ones — they’re inefficient and fragile. So I think the “pragmatic” claim that “the question is … whether it works” is not threatened by that consideration. What is it really about?
January 29, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Jason B.
pidgas isn’t a person. It’s a secret organization.
Pathetic Impotent Douchebags Grasping At Straws.
Thank me later for decoding that.
January 29, 2009 at 5:51 pm
andrew
I look at this and I think: as late as 1938 real GDP was barely above where it was when Hoover took office. This is the entirely correct way to think about that graphic.
January 29, 2009 at 6:40 pm
eric
andrew’s aiming for an award in denialist ventriloquism.
January 29, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Spike
Maybe this is a good place to ask New Deal related questions. I just ran across this. Given the source, I’m assuming its bullshit. My question is how? Is there any particular reason 1936 would have been cherry picked as the canonical year of the new deal?
January 29, 2009 at 7:47 pm
pidgas
Vance, you’ve unpacked the point. The question is whether government is the best way to provide a given good or service. Despite Obama’s assertion, government being a way is not enough.
January 29, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Vance
I still don’t get it, quite. Even if you want to talk about whether government works as well as something else, you’re still talking about whether it works. So I don’t see that line from the inaugural as inconsistent with your concern.
January 30, 2009 at 7:46 am
pidgas
Vance, inefficiency and unreliability are real costs. If government “works” but does so inefficiently and unreliably, it matters.
January 30, 2009 at 8:16 am
eric
Vance, please stop feeding the trolls.
January 30, 2009 at 8:20 am
Barry
Eric, you need to title this graph. I suggest ‘Eat it raw, Chicago B*tches!’ (you can fill in the ‘*’)
January 30, 2009 at 9:32 am
eric s.
Did anyone see Michelle “Unamerican!” Bachmann’s commentary on these matters? It’s in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.
The Perils of Spending Like It’s 1929
January 30, 2009 at 11:25 am
pidgas
Eric, as someone who reads this blog with interest and appreciates your opinions, that stings. My posts have been to the point and on topic.
January 30, 2009 at 11:31 am
eric
OK, pidgas, I’m sorry to sting you. But your comment is based on an excessively narrow and ungenerous reading of Obama’s statement, to the point that it’s very hard for me to understand how you could not be trolling. Do you really think Obama’s proposing to turn the government into a Rube Goldberg apparatus that “works” but does no useful work?
Or am I now ignoring my own advice, and feeding the troll?
January 30, 2009 at 11:33 am
Barbar
Isn’t there some efficient private-sector solution to the problem of providing fiscal stimulus?
January 30, 2009 at 11:37 am
Vance
Perhaps if we ignore the collective action problem?
January 30, 2009 at 11:43 am
Vance
pidgas, what’s trollish about your comments in this thread is the way they tease or hint at an argument without stating it. And rereading the thread, I see that apart from social indiscipline, I fell into the trap of discussing “is government the solution: yes or no”.
January 30, 2009 at 6:01 pm
pidgas
Forgive me for being concise to the point of being terse. I did not intend to “tease” or “hint” at my argument.
Rube Goldberg machines accomplish simple tasks in byzantine ways. Whether these machines accomplish “useful” work is subjective and beside the point.* These machines make simple tasks complex. As a result, they are generally less efficient and reliable than the alternatives. I mentioned them to make a simple relevant point: efficiency and reliability matter a lot. If the central question was whether something works or not, we’d see a lot more Rube Goldberg machines around.
President Obama tried to re-frame the debate about the role of government in our society. He rightly dismissed those who speak in terms of “growing” or “shrinking” government and then attempted to center the debate around whether government “works.” I assert that this question is necessary but not sufficient. Instead, we should ask whether government works better than the alternatives.
When the public has a choice between two working alternatives and the ability to discern which produces public benefit most efficiently, justice requires we choose the alternative which maximizes public utility. To the extent we choose solutions for ideological or political reasons, we fail each other and our children.
* The Rube Goldberg Machine Contest winner from last year built a hamburger. The year before it juiced an orange and poured the juice into a cup. As someone who enjoys both hamburgers and fresh-squeezed OJ, I’d classify their work as “useful.”
January 30, 2009 at 6:36 pm
pidgas
To be clear, the alternative which produces benefit most efficiently is the one most likely to maximize public utility.
January 30, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Barbar
pidgas labors hard to emphasize the importance of alternatives, without actually stooping to mention any.
January 30, 2009 at 7:50 pm
ari
The market, if left unfettered, will provide all the alternatives we need.
January 30, 2009 at 8:20 pm
andrew
Public utility is good, and you can’t get enough of a good thing. Therefore, public utilities are good. Next question?
January 30, 2009 at 8:22 pm
ari
I prefer Atlantic Avenue, Ventnor Avenue, and Marvin Gardens to the public utilities. But that’s just me.
January 31, 2009 at 2:44 pm
JPool
Railroads. That’s where the money’s at.{/robber baron}