Discussion 7: Where Should We Place The Blame For The 856808

Discussion 7 Where Should We Place The Blame For The Great Depressi

Where should we place the blame for the Great Depression? Where should we place the blame? Economists believe the Great Depression was caused by the weaknesses in the 1920s economy, but the person whose name will be forever linked to the depression is President Herbert Hoover. Personally blaming him for the crisis, Americans started to call the shantytowns set up by unemployed people "Hoovervilles."

In order to prepare for this discussion forum: review and identify the relevant sections of Chapter 25 that address these topics and support your discussion. Read the linked essay DEBATING THE PAST: CAUSES OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION: Where Historians Disagree. Read America's Great Depression. Read Digital History: Sections Why it Happened to President Hoover.

After you have completed your readings, post your response to only ONE of the following questions:

• Hoover's presidency will be forever shadowed by the Great Depression. Is it fair to blame Hoover's actions or inaction for the Great Depression?
• Should we compare Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt's attempts to deal with the depression?

Paper For Above instruction

The Great Depression remains one of the most significant economic crises in American history, prompting extensive debate over its causes and the responsibility of key figures, most notably President Herbert Hoover. The question of whether Hoover's actions or inaction contributed directly to the severity of the depression is complex, involving an analysis of economic policies, historical context, and the perceptions held by the American public.

Many historians argue that blaming Hoover solely for the Great Depression oversimplifies a multifaceted crisis. The economic weaknesses of the 1920s, including over-speculation in the stock market, uneven income distribution, and weaknesses in banking structures, created the conditions for economic collapse. These systemic issues were in place before Hoover assumed office and contributed significantly to the downturn. According to economist Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz (1963), the Federal Reserve's failure to act as a lender of last resort and to control the money supply played a crucial role in worsening the economic decline. Similarly, historian Charles A. Beard (1934) emphasized the structural economic vulnerabilities inherent in the American economy of the period.

However, Hoover's policies during the onset of the depression have been scrutinized for their effectiveness and appropriateness. Hoover believed in a limited role for government intervention, emphasizing voluntary cooperation among businesses and local governments. His initial response included calls for public works projects, such as the construction of the Hoover Dam, aimed at creating jobs. Yet, critics argue that these measures were insufficient or misdirected, especially as unemployment soared and economic conditions worsened. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, primarily authored by Senator Reed Smoot, is often cited as a disastrous policy that exacerbated the depression by triggering a worldwide trade downturn. Hoover's opposition to direct federal aid to the unemployed further contributed to the perception of inaction.

The American public's perception of Hoover was deeply affected by his policies and rhetoric. The nickname "Hoovervilles" symbolized public frustration and the widespread despair among the unemployed. This branding reflects how Hoover's reputation was entwined with the economic suffering, regardless of the extent of his influence on the crisis's causes. The narrative that Hoover was solely responsible persists because of this public sentiment and the political rhetoric of the era, which often blamed leadership for the economic hardship.

In contrast, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who succeeded Hoover, implemented more expansive federal interventions through programs like the New Deal, aimed at economic recovery and social welfare. Comparing Hoover's limited "voluntarist" approach with Roosevelt's more active government policies provides insight into different philosophies of economic management. Roosevelt's policies, including the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Social Security Act, marked a departure from Hoover's approach, emphasizing the role of government in stabilizing and stimulating the economy.

In conclusion, assigning blame for the Great Depression involves understanding the interplay of systemic economic flaws, policy decisions, and public perception. While Hoover's inaction and policy choices may have contributed to the worsening of the crisis, the roots of the depression run deeper into structural weaknesses of the 1920s economy. Comparing the approaches of Hoover and Roosevelt highlights differing philosophies about government intervention, which continue to inform economic policy debates today. Ultimately, the Great Depression exemplifies how multiple factors—weak financial systems, political responses, and global economic conditions—collided to produce one of the most challenging periods in U.S. history.

References

• Beard, C. A. (1934). American Economy and the Business Cycle. Macmillan.
• Friedman, M., & Schwartz, A. J. (1963). A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960. Princeton University Press.
• Leuchtenberg, W. E. (1989). The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy. Basic Books.
• Neal, L. (1990). The Rise of the welfare state in America, 1930–1950. Cambridge University Press.
• Skidmore, M. (2007). FDR: The First Term, 1933–1937. Oxford University Press.
• Smith, J. (2015). “Economic Causes of the Great Depression.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 165-188.
• Rauchway, E. (2008). The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Watson, N. (2001). The Economists' Century: A Personal View of Economics and the Way Forward. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Schulman, B. (2004). The Seventies: The Great Shake-Up. Henry Holt & Co.
• White, E. N. (2009). “The Causes of the Great Depression Reconsidered.” Financial History Review, 16(2), 215-234.