SitNews - Stories in the News - Ketchikan, Alaska


How did the nation climb out of the Great Depression?
Las Vegas Sun


February 05, 2009
Thursday PM

As senators wrangle this week over Washington's plan to stimulate the economy, the debate is laced with competing interpretations of something that happened seven decades ago: the Great Depression.

Many Democrats believe government's spending under Franklin Roosevelt helped the nation climb out of the Depression. They support President Barack Obama's plan to inject $900 billion into the economy.

Other lawmakers, mainly Republicans, believe the opposite. They want to rein in Obama's stimulus package and provide more tax breaks so the private sector can reverse the downturn.

"All the government spending did not take us out of the Depression," Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign said.

So which view of the Depression is correct?

Let's start with the president who occupied the White House when the Depression began -- Herbert Hoover.

Did Hoover sit on his hands, predicting an imminent recovery, as liberal politicians and economists say?

Or, was he, as Ensign said, "very much an interventionist"? Ensign argues he "raised taxes, he increased spending - very much tried to meddle in the economy," without success.

Brian Balogh, a 20th-century historian at the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs, said Hoover often did assure the public that the Depression was in retreat, but he did so while trying a number of things to revive the economy.

Hoover created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which directed money to state and local governments to continue with large capital projects. He also raised tariffs on imports.

But the Depression continued.

William Gale, an economist at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said the judgment of Hoover's actions doesn't come down to a matter of "too much or too little; it was the wrong thing. It's not a matter of do you intervene or not intervene. It's whether you do something intelligent or not."

Ultimately, Hoover was "unwilling to have the national government intervene directly in the economy," Balogh said. He "drew the line at direct work relief, at creating federal jobs for people."

Raising tariffs, in fact, turned out to be counterproductive. It kept countries that exported to the United States from earning enough dollars to pay their debts, which in turn led to big losses for the banking industry, said James Galbraith, economist at the University of Texas' LBJ School of Public Affairs.

Historians and economists are less in agreement about the effects of the man who replaced Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, and the effects of his New Deal.

Launched in Roosevelt's first term, the New Deal included enormous deficit spending to pay for new agricultural programs and emergency relief and work relief programs, in addition to reforms to banking and industry.

Did it work? Here's where things get murky.

Economists and historians agree that under Hoover, unemployment climbed to record levels, 25 percent, and then steadily declined after FDR took over in 1933.

By the end of the 1930s, unemployment was down to 10 percent or less. "In fact, Roosevelt did spend his way out of the Depression," Galbraith said.

But other economists argue that unemployment actually stood much higher at the end of the decade - at 15 percent. And at 15 percent, they say, the country was still in a Depression even if far more Americans had jobs.

Another point of contention about the Great Depression is something that occurred in FDR's second term. Roosevelt campaigned in 1936 on ending deficit spending and returning to the policies of a balanced budget. After reining in spending by repealing many welfare programs, however, the economy slid in 1937. So was it a mistake to halt deficit spending?

Again, the debate continues.

As the 1930s drew to a close, FDR's treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, told Congress that despite spending more money than ever before, the federal government had not solved the riddle of the Depression.

Most experts do agree that a lesson of the Depression is that the government must act aggressively to stop a downward spiral caused by an absence of liquidity.

"The lesson of the past is the government didn't respond enough to avert the banking crisis. We can't just stand by and let the financial system collapse," Gale said. "If the economy is the engine, the financial system is the oil. If you lose the oil, then the engine dies - and a particularly nasty death. That lesson has been learned."

The Depression ended in the first half of the 1940s as the government spent unprecedented sums to finance World War II. Suddenly jobs were more plentiful than workers. The war had provided economic stimulus far greater than anything under the New Deal.



Distributed to subscribers for publication by
Scripps Howard News Service,

Publish A Letter in SitNews
        Read Letters/Opinions

Contact the Editor

SitNews ©2009
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska

 Articles & photographs that appear in SitNews may be protected by copyright and may not be reprinted without written permission from and payment of any required fees to the proper sources.