The Hoover pro-labor thesis: “Completely wrong”

Economic historian Brad DeLong pushes back against revisionist Great Depression history

Topics: How the World Works, Unemployment,

Economic historian Brad DeLong, a fierce warrior hailing from FDR’s camp in the ongoing battle to redefine the meaning of the Great Depression and the New Deal, was the first to respond to my queries about UCLA economist Lee Ohanian’s new paper blaming Herbert Hoover’s “pro-labor stance” for causing the Great Depression.

Completely wrong. If wages had fallen faster and further, goods prices and real estate prices would have fallen further and faster, more banks would have gone into bankruptcy, the bank failures would have shrunk the money supply even more, the velocity of money would have fallen even further, and the Great Depression would have been even worse.

Larry Summers and I wrote a paper about this back in the 1980s.

Milton Friedman’s teacher Jacob Viner always argued that it was “unbalanced deflation” — i.e., declines in asset prices and wages and incomes while debts remained the same — that was the cause of the Great Depression. So did monetarist school founder Irving Fisher.

Ask yourself: if everybody’s salary in America were to be cut now by 20 percent — but everyone’s mortgage payment and every corporation’s debt interest payments remained the same, would we see a recovery or another chain of financial bankruptcies that would push the economy down further?

Boiled down, DeLong is saying that if U.S. employers had ignored Hoover’s plea not to cut wages drastically (more below about that), they would have drastically increased the speed and ferocity of the post-stock-market crash economic contraction.

UPDATE: Eric Rauchway, a historian at U.C. Davis and author of “The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction,” chips in his own two cents. While acknowledging that he has not yet read the paper, Rauchway suspects it is “operating similarly to Ohanian’s earlier work,” which he has previously considered in the context of critiquing Amity Shlaes.



More concretely, here’s the thing: if you want to say, “I’ll take ‘Causes of the Great Depression’, Alex,” you have to be prepared with an explanation for (a) why things got so bad under Hoover and (b) why they then got better under Roosevelt.

Monetarist models explain this: the gold standard was deflationary, and going off the gold standard helped countries out of the Great Depression. Hoover didn’t go off the gold standard. FDR did. Things got better.

Keynesian models explain this: Hoover didn’t do enough to stimulate demand. Roosevelt did more (though still not quite enough).

Ohanian’s model doesn’t explain this.

My first post on this topic is spawning an interesting comments thread. The following post seems worth highlighting.

I’m a historian. Although labor history is not my specific field, I can confidently tell you that this is ideologically motivated garbage. Hoover’s calls for volunteerism generally fall under the “too little, too late” category, and it’s ridiculous to describe Hoover as pro-labor. As president he defended his decision to not take action on the grounds that the market solves problems better than government and that government assistance would limit liberty and discourage hard work. (Sound familiar?) That said, historians and economists are deeply divided over how much weight to assign the various factors that contributed to the Depression, including monetary policy, declining investment, declining consumer spending, and international issues such as tariffs and WWI reparations. But to say that Hoover’s calls for volunteerism — (urging corporate leaders to not cut wages or lay off workers, while also urging labor leaders to not go on strike or press for concessions, on the grounds that everyone should voluntarily come together as neighbors to help one another through the crisis) were the “single-most important event” is just bizarre.

Andrew Leonard

Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon. On Twitter, @koxinga21.

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 13
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails
    Clare Barboza/Bloomsbury

    Uncommon Apples

    Api Étoile

    Like little stars.

    Clare Barboza/Bloomsbury

    Uncommon Apples

    Calville Blanc

    World's best pie apple. Essential for Tarte Tatin. Has five prominent ribs.

    Clare Barboza/Bloomsbury

    Uncommon Apples

    Chenango Strawberry

    So pretty. So early. So ephemeral. Tastes like strawberry candy (slightly).

    Clare Barboza/Bloomsbury

    Uncommon Apples

    Chestnut Crab

    My personal fave. Ultra-crisp. Graham cracker flavor. Should be famous. Isn't.

    Clare Barboza/Bloomsbury

    Uncommon Apples

    D'Arcy Spice

    High flavored with notes of blood orange and allspice. Very rare.

    Clare Barboza/Bloomsbury

    Uncommon Apples

    Esopus Spitzenberg

    Jefferson's favorite. The best all-purpose American apple.

    Clare Barboza/Bloomsbury

    Uncommon Apples

    Granite Beauty

    New Hampshire's native son has a grizzled appearance and a strangely addictive curry flavor. Very, very rare.

    Clare Barboza/Bloomsbury

    Uncommon Apples

    Hewes Crab

    Makes the best hard cider in America. Soon to be famous.

    Clare Barboza/Bloomsbury

    Uncommon Apples

    Hidden Rose

    Freak seedling found in an Oregon field in the '60s has pink flesh and a fragrant strawberry snap. Makes a killer rose cider.

    Clare Barboza/Bloomsbury

    Uncommon Apples

    Knobbed Russet

    Freak city.

    Clare Barboza/Bloomsbury

    Uncommon Apples

    Newtown Pippin

    Ben Franklin's favorite. Queen Victoria's favorite. Only apple native to NYC.

    Clare Barboza/Bloomsbury

    Uncommon Apples

    Pitmaston Pineapple

    Really does taste like pineapple.

  • Recent Slide Shows

Comments

0 Comments

Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>