Coolidge did the same thing as all prior presidents in economic recessions, and it always worked for them.
Hoover, incluenced by the Progressive philosophy of "governmnet solves all problems and individuals be damned," tried to "force" a solution to the recession. Unlike every prior case, it got much worse for much longer.
So if you want to assume correlation strongly suggests causation, I win the argument.
If you instead want to say that we need to look at root causes, I say the notion that we need or can solve economic problems with top-down force instead of bottom-up individual pursuit of values is ludicrous.
> It is part of the Government's job to prevent such depressions from occurring ever again
That is just your assertion. And the notion that the government can do that is fantasy thinking. I think they can influence contractions and expansions but the net of it is less economic production in the long run; it doesn't gain you anything. And sometimes they screw up small and cause things like Freddie and Fannie's mortgage bubble. And eventually they screw up big, as any puppet master does, and you get hyperinflation or bank crises.
>>> Coolidge did the same thing as all prior presidents in economic recessions, and it always worked for them.
Pure ignorance of the first (and second, and third...) financial crisis of the US.
Going back to the first US Banking Crisis: the Panic of 1819... then President Monroe set the standard on how financial crisis would be handled. (Its a complicated story because the US was so different back then... there was the Federally-chartered "Bank of the US", among other things)
To solve the Panic of 1819, President Monroe would nullify certain debts, to ease recovery. Sound familiar?? State-level banks then increased the monetary supply, and Congress passed more Tariffs to discourage exports/imports.
The one thing that is constant in this country's 200 year history, is that the Federalists and the Non-Federalists have been arguing the cause and effect of government since the start. Federalists blame the "free market" of 1816 for causing the panic of 1819 (ie: It was inevitable due to Wartime debt from 1812 and a crisis in Europe). On the other hand, the Non-Federalists blame the centralized "Bank of the US" for setting off the panic.
---------------------
The one thing that is clear to me, is that the proud history of the US is for this debate to spin up every 20 years as the US hobbles from crisis to crisis. The President will do the same thing and step in and sponsor new laws... he'll also forgive debts, the monetary supply will expand in some way, and Congress will pass something irrelevant to the discussion.
Coolidge did the same thing as all prior presidents in economic recessions, and it always worked for them.
Hoover, incluenced by the Progressive philosophy of "governmnet solves all problems and individuals be damned," tried to "force" a solution to the recession. Unlike every prior case, it got much worse for much longer.
So if you want to assume correlation strongly suggests causation, I win the argument.
If you instead want to say that we need to look at root causes, I say the notion that we need or can solve economic problems with top-down force instead of bottom-up individual pursuit of values is ludicrous.
> It is part of the Government's job to prevent such depressions from occurring ever again
That is just your assertion. And the notion that the government can do that is fantasy thinking. I think they can influence contractions and expansions but the net of it is less economic production in the long run; it doesn't gain you anything. And sometimes they screw up small and cause things like Freddie and Fannie's mortgage bubble. And eventually they screw up big, as any puppet master does, and you get hyperinflation or bank crises.