Challenge: Herbert Hoover known as an interventionist

In the actual timeline, Herbert Hoover is known an a Laissez-Faire stooge who was no different then most in his time, but had the misfortune of being in office during the crash. However, in reality he implemented the greatest tarriff in global history, wage control, price control, rose taxes by 39%, started workers programs, the Federal Home Loan Act, he gave monetary emergency aide to the states for the first time on a wide spread scale, and he started the NCC/RFC.

John Nance Garner accused Hoover of out right Socialism, while FDR pointed out that he has increased spending levels to peace time records. Roosevelt ran on a campaign that suggested that he would lower taxes, tarriffs, and decrease government spending by 25%.


How can the obvious, that Hoover was not a Laissez-Faire practitioner, be common knowledge in America today?
 
In the actual timeline, Herbert Hoover is known an a Laissez-Faire stooge who was no different then most in his time, but had the misfortune of being in office during the crash. However, in reality he implemented the greatest tarriff in global history, wage control, price control, rose taxes by 39%, started workers programs, the Federal Home Loan Act, he gave monetary emergency aide to the states for the first time on a wide spread scale, and he started the NCC/RFC.

John Nance Garner accused Hoover of out right Socialism, while FDR pointed out that he has increased spending levels to peace time records. Roosevelt ran on a campaign that suggested that he would lower taxes, tarriffs, and decrease government spending by 25%.


How can the obvious, that Hoover was not a Laissez-Faire practitioner, be common knowledge in America today?


A) Any interventionist things Hoover did were right at the end of his term. Until the very end, he preached volunteerism and the market to get the nation out of the depression. Taxes and tariffs are also not really interventionist economic policies I would say (and I think those were the first things Hoover did before any intervention).

B) I have massive suspicions as to whether Garner ever said that. The only use of it I can find is on anti-New Deal sites and I have never seen it sourced. Likewise, Hoover (and this can be sourced as far as I know) frequently claimed during the election of 1933 that FDR was going to lead the nation to socialism and his New Deal and large government spending associated with such program(s) would be ruinous. And if you look at how much flack the conservatives threw at FDR calling the New Deal socialist and FDR himself socialist (along with a secret Jew, among other things), I further doubt that quote's actuality.

C) FDR did lower taxes, and I believe the tariff as well, and I'm not sure as to whether he actually agreed to cut spending so much as just balance the deficit (which he abandoned as you couldn't balance the deficit until the economy was already on stable footing; one of the basic tenets of Keynesianism I believe) or perhaps redirect from the wasteful spending of Hoover to useful spending.
 
Last edited:
A) Any interventionist things Hoover did were right at the end of his term. Until the very end, he preached volunteerism and the market to get the nation out of the depression. Taxes and tariffs are also not really interventionist economic policies I would say (and I think those were the first things Hoover did before any intervention).
Raising Tarriffs to record levels doesn't count as Interventionism? Neither does raising taxes by nearly 40%?

By 1931, Hoover had already intevened more then any other peace time President in US history and started several programs. This is also ignoring Hoover's pressure on business to keep wages at artificially high levels.

B) I have massive suspicions as to whether Garner ever said that. The only use of it I can find is on anti-New Deal sites and I have never seen it sourced.
Suit yourself.

C) FDR did lower taxes, and I believe the tariff as well, and I'm not sure as to whether he actually agreed to cut spending so much as just balance the deficit (which he abandoned as you couldn't balance the deficit until the economy was already on stable footing).
Tarriffs, yes. Taxes however were raised to all time highs on all groups. The income tax went up, the SS tax was implemented, corporate taxes were raised, while the government punished the lower class with record high excise taxes.

But Roosevelts presidency isn't the point of this topic(there are different topics for that). However, mentioning aspects of his campaign are.
 
Raising Tarriffs to record levels doesn't count as Interventionism? Neither does raising taxes by nearly 40%?

By 1931, Hoover had already intevened more then any other peace time President in US history and started several programs. This is also ignoring Hoover's pressure on business to keep wages at artificially high levels.

Taxes and tariffs are not interventionist because they are nothing really actively getting involved in economic matters. Wage controls, etc., that's intervention. Higher taxes, lower taxes, high tariff, lower tariff is as minimalist as you can get in involvement.

Hoover also avoided any intervention until the very end. His mantra was volunteerism until the end when he began to eek into intervention.

Tarriffs, yes. Taxes however were raised to all time highs on all groups. The income tax went up, the SS tax was implemented, corporate taxes were raised, while the government punished the lower class with record high excise taxes.
I doubt that. FDR lowered income taxes and only implemented certain new taxes which were geared for programs to help the citizens paying for them anyway. Any raising in the income tax was state introduced, not national. His corporate tax raise also failed to pass congress. And any tax increases in income, corporate, etc. only came during the world war and I believe to pay for the world war.
 
One thing I was supprised to see was that he used to make a big deal out of his engeneering background. I mean I saw a movie from the convention with signs proclaiming Herbert Hoover: the great engeneer. The step to suspect he was a social/economical engeneer isn't that far.
 
Top