Working People Need To See The Forest AND The Trees

For those who are terribly worried about the plight of millionaires and billionaires, let me reassure you: they'll be fine! I had a troubling conversation with an acquaintance the other day. He's working class and in his 50s and of Chinese background (born in the U.S.). He proceeded to tell me how "the government" (his term) has forced so many corporations to move facilities and jobs to China and other countries. When I asked him just what he meant, he mentioned regulations about clean air, clean water, employment and also business taxes. He cited his source as Fox News. Okay, so here we have a guy who makes, at most I'm sure, $1,500 a month, and likely closer to $1,200 a month, who has had car trouble a couple of times just since the first of the year (a 2000 model car), yet he's spouting the propaganda nonsense of the wealthiest Americans, all provided to him by Fox News. Let me tell you something, the richest Americans did NOT move facilities and jobs out of the country because they were fearful they couldn't pay the electric bill for their chauffeur's bedroom or because they weren't making big money. They did it to make MORE money. Now you can say, "That's fine," but then let's dispense with all the anti-government rigamarole and tell us what you really mean. Let's hear what it really means: like, "I don't give a good damn if you choke to death in air pollution, or die from poisoned water, or get lead poisoning, or you can't get a job (or hold a job) because you're a minority, or a woman, or gay, or are 55 or 60 years old. I want MORE money!" (But you have lots of money.) "This is a free country and I can make however much I want, and I'm going to make it in China, because I can make there without worrying about clean air, clean water, your damnable employment because of your age, gender or ethnic background." (That's not very patriotic.) "Patriotic? I'm a true, red blooded American, and I'm religious too." (What if there are government upheavals in some of the countries where you now have facilities?) "Well the U.S. government better just get their behinds into action to protect my interests." (So if that means sending troops into harms way, "boots on the ground," as some Republicans like to always say, that would be okay?) "You're damned right! (So the Americans you put out of work because of those "damnable employment regulations" should send their sons and daughters to defend you?) "You got it."

Why non wealthy Americans would rise to defend the interests of the super wealthy is beyond me. The system is meant to be contentious, and if you aren't contentious, about the only thing they'll give you is the middle finger, just as so many have been doing by moving jobs overseas. For those who continue to say, "I want to keep making my $8.00 an hour, duh," don't expect any gratitude in return from the super wealthy. No, you can't even see your own self interest, but they ALWAYS see their own self interest. Remember, they didn't go through all of the outsourcing of jobs and support union busting politicians so they could pay you more, they want to pay you less! That's what all of this is about. One thing is for sure, they ARE greedier than you, and they are willing to destroy you to try to satisfy their greed. All at a time when the wealthiest segment of America is making more money and taking a greater percentage of the national income than perhaps since the latter part of the 1800s!      

And get this, the super money making is not limited to just some industries or businesses, as even Goodwill Industries, a "non profit" business that exists to help train and employ people with employment disadvantages, including disabilities, pays some workers less than the minimum wage, including some who make about a quarter an hour! (Just to be clear, this is legal under specific circumstances.) At the same time, executives for many of Goodwill's branches make hundreds of thousands of dollars, with some making anywhere from a half million to more than one million dollars a year. I guess the "non profit" designation must refer to the workers. I don't mean to just cite Goodwill, but this just goes to show how this "money to the richest" philosophy has permeated the entire American business world, where the wealthiest feel ENTITLED to make not just more than 99% of other Americans, but gazillions more! This is a philosophy that will continue the decline of the country. All the while Americans are bombarded with advertisements telling us "to buy this new phone with all sorts of gadgets, most which you won't be able to figure out how to use by the time we release the next super gadget phone," or "get the latest cable or satellite TV package with 55,000,000 channels, 54,999,988 you'll never watch, but if you don't get this package you're a loser," or "get your tickets to the next game and sit right up close to see that 5 million dollar a year shortstop for just $300 for four tickets, and don't forget to bring plenty of money with you, because we've got some deals for you, like 4 cups of beer for $30.00 and 4 hotdogs for just $16.00, what a deal, that less than fifty dollars."

Then there's the political side of things. Here in Ohio Republican John Kasich defeated Democratic incumbent governor Ted Strickland in 2010 in part by running a television ad telling Ohioans that his father had been a mailman and how he therefore related to working people. No sooner had he taken office than he and other Republicans in the state legislature began an assault to gut unions, an assault that ended with an embarrassing trouncing for Republicans in a referendum on the issue. Don't be fooled; forget the "my father was a mailman" story, this was about camouflaging the shift of more money to the wealthy by destroying unions, along with wage, benefit, job protection and safety provisions unions help to set for all workers, including non union workers. If we allow unions to be destroyed, no whining about our treatment at the hands of ruthless greed. We deserve it! I make NO apologies to the wealthiest of the wealthy, or to John Kasich, I proudly stand for unions! The object of conservative policy seems always to be, "we've got to cut middle class and poor Americans so that we can give tax cuts to the wealthy." At least that argument  would sound half way sane, if the wealthy were in decline, but they are doing better than anytime in more than a century; it is the middle class and the poor who are under siege With so much excess money in their hands, the wealthy can influence all sorts of financial markets to their advantage very easily and also tamper with the political system. The Supreme Court decision (Citizens United) that essentially said that corporations are people and that corporations (who owns corporations? The wealthiest Americans) can contribute unlimited sums of money to political causes and permits special political groups to act as attack dogs (used by both major parties) by using money from anonymous donors is perhaps the biggest blow to American democracy yet. America was once the progressive source of democracy for the world, now we've become regressive, with increasing power to the wealthy, the worst income inequality among developed nations, less social mobility (generally the ability to move upward in income level), the most expensive health care system, without necessarily a comparable benefit for the costs as compared to other developed nations,* a high rate of infant mortality, etc. Workers of America who support the conservative agenda and thus the wealthiest of the wealthy, I just want you to know, that expanse of trees is called a forest.

* For some very good information on the health care cost/benefit comparisons, see this PBS article:  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html

WORD HISTORY:
Curt-Like its relative "short," this word goes back to Indo European "sker," which meant "to cut," but without the beginning "s" sound. This gave its Latin offspring "curtus," which meant "short/shortened." Forms of the word spread through the Germanic languages, "seemingly" around 800-900 A.D., but English, unlike its close relatives, did not borrow the word at that time, retaining Germanic "short" to this day; the only Germanic language to retain the word as its main adjective word for "short." Exactly when English borrowed the word is somewhat unclear, but I "lean" toward 1350-1400, and it simply meant "brief," from which later developed the meaning "abrupt, blunt," its main meaning in modern times. German has "kurz" (meaning "short") which replaced "schurz," which had been the German form closely related to English "short." Low German Saxon, Danish, Norwegian, Dutch and Swedish all have "kort;" and West Frisian has "koart." As best I can tell, Icelandic does not use a form of "curt." As I noted above, "curt" and "short" are related, but "short" came from the Germanic branch of Indo European (English is a Germanic language), and "curt" came from the Italic/Latin branch of Indo European and was borrowed by many Germanic languages, including English.  

Short Selling, Market Manipulation?

Just to help some, probably most, of you understand a term that gets used a lot in the news about the stock market, this article will deal with "short selling." Now short selling doesn't have to be just in the stock market, as it is in real estate, and it can be used pretty much for any asset, as long as the actual owner is willing to loan you whatever the asset and agree to its replacement. I will exaggerate a bit here in my example to make a point, as most short selling in stocks is not done in such small amounts, but rather in the thousands, or tens of thousands of shares, and most often prices don't move in such dramatic fashion.

When you "short" something, in this example, stocks, you don't actually own it, you borrow it. Now you might wonder how you can sell something you don't own, but remember, this is the world of finance and investment, where the big boys (and in more recent times, big girls, too) make the rules to suit themselves. I would dare say most people think of stocks or other assets having to gain in value for the owner to make money, but not in the financial world, where they have tailored transactions to cash in on items that LOSE value.

So here is my example: You borrow 100 shares of company "XYZ." At the time you borrow the shares, each share is worth $10.00. You sell the 100 shares and so now you have $1000 (100 x $10). It is important to remember, you did NOT borrow $1000, you borrowed 100 shares of company XYZ. The next day company XYZ reports earnings way below what were anticipated; the price of a share falls to $5.00. You now buy 100 shares at $5.00 for a total of $500 to cover; that is, pay back the 100 shares you borrowed. So $1000 - $500=$500 profit for you. Understand, there are fees associated with borrowing shares and then the selling and buying of shares, but I've left that out to keep the basic principle as simple as possible. Understand, there is risk involved, as if XYZ reports higher profits, the stock will then cost you more to buy and you will lose money. The basic principle is, you thought XYZ was overvalued at $10 a share and that the company's earning would not support that price, so you went through the above process, but what if you had a "tip" from someone inside the company that profits were down? That would give you an advantage, and that's why insider trading is illegal; not that illegality has stopped it. Short selling has also been cited by some as contributing to market instability and market crashes, as "borrowers" need that particular stock to decline to make money, leaving open the possibility of rumors to move stocks lower. Again remember, typically these transactions aren't about $500, like in my example, but they are more about hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars at a time. When you talk about that kind of money, LOOK OUT! Some countries have strict rules about short selling, especially about short selling stocks from banking or other financial companies.

Back around the time of the Wall Street Crash of 1929, which heralded the Great Depression, there was one company executive (I can't recall his name or which company was involved) who shorted tens of thousands of company shares for millions in profits for himself (remember, even ONE million dollars back then was like many, many millions in today's money). Such things helped bring some regulation to all of the nonsense, although I'm sure the millionaires who had benefited from the original process whined all the way to the bank, which they likely owned anyway.
 
WORD HISTORY:
Short-This is closely related to "shirt" and "skirt;" the literal meanings of which are, "short garments." It goes back to Indo European "sker," which meant "to cut." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "skurtaz," which meant "short," from the notion of something being "cut off." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "scort," meaning "short," which then became "schort," before the modern version. Over time many of the other Germanic languages came to use forms of a relative of "short;" that being "curt," as their word for "short," although they also kept forms for the related "shirt/skirt." German once had "scurz," but today only Icelandic (from what I can determine) has words used with the same general meaning as the English word, and Icelandic has both "skortur" (deficiency, shortage) and "skort" (to lack, be short of).

Herbert Hoover: March Toward Reactionary, Part Three/Final

While Herbert Hoover took the Federal government into the economy and into direct relief aid to the states, his words did not keep pace with his actions, as he spoke as if his America of old was still there all the same and unchanged, as such a great system would never need the programs he had just initiated. This was one of the reasons Hoover received little credit for his actions, since he himself denied they were changes to the system, although his limitations on his own programs left these programs far from achieving their potential to stabilize the economy, which was much more the reason for the lack of acknowledgement to Hoover. When smacked in the face by reality like bankers not wanting to make loans and charities being overwhelmed by impoverished citizens, Hoover did indeed change, but he could not bring himself to acknowledge that change. It is tough to tell what Hoover actually believed, as he later became one of the main critics of the New Deal; yet, later still, he admitted that he likely would have signed the same legislation that FDR signed; that is,  ... THE NEW DEAL! And the New Deal had its roots in many of Hoover's own policies.

Upon leaving the presidency, Hoover was one bitter man. He had shown signs of such during his time in office, as he seemed bitter at the terrible hand he had been dealt for the pinnacle of his career, the presidency. Hoover the humanitarian leader, Hoover the businessman and Hoover the Secretary of Commerce was used to giving orders and lecturing others, not having to garner votes from politicians or listen to their lecturing. He was very shy, but supremely self confident in his ideas to the point that when they failed, he kept going, almost contemptuous of others' ideas. Hoover, in my opinion, had a weak ego; that is, he was insecure to the point where a criticism of one of his plans was like a personal insult. In the rough and tumble world of politics, all of this took a toll on Herbert Hoover. He and FDR had been friends for years, but Hoover ended up detesting Roosevelt, partially because of Roosevelt's criticisms during the presidential election of 1932, when Roosevelt easily defeated Hoover, and Hoover took the criticisms  personally, as he had not come up in the give and take world of politics, and that insecurity of his was always there. When Roosevelt initiated the New Deal, taken in part from Hoover's ideas and policies, Hoover blasted it, in my opinion, because someone else came up with the necessary changes needed to make the ideas more successful. This created resentment in Hoover and it spilled out into the open as he bitterly attacked FDR and his administration and moved himself into the role of something of an arch conservative hero, a place he would pretty much hold until his death. Maybe someone should have tried to convince Hoover early on that the New Deal, at least in part, was really his idea and he might then have supported it, but in fact, Roosevelt and the Democrats didn't need Hoover's blessing, as the very mention of Hoover's name could draw highly negative responses at public events for many years, including when his image appeared in newsreels at theaters. As sensitive a man as he was, all of this negative use of his name embittered him all the more, and it wasn't until some Democrats began to feel a little guilty that Hoover mellowed a tad, and that first came when Harry Truman was president. Hoover, at Truman's request, helped to reorganize the federal government to save money, and he and Truman developed a friendship of sorts, but Hoover, ever hypersensitive to criticism, didn't trust Truman either, as old Harry was a politician, and he used Hoover's name to scare the hell out of some Americans at various political events. I'm sure Truman just saw it all as politics, but Hoover was furious at what he saw as personal insults.

Hoover has links to conservatives even today, except he was never as mean and nasty while in office as some of today's "take me back to the good old Stone Age" conservatives, and while he lived in something of a dream world about his policies and an idealistic America; in fact, he saw problems and at least he made an effort to solve them, albeit with limitations. The desire of today's conservatives to repeal the estate tax would have made Herbert Hoover furious, as he believed great fortunes should not be allowed to be passed on intact, with the biggest being broken up to give others a chance to share in the wealth, and his tax program was highly progressive, not regressive like that of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush or Paul Ryan. Like today's conservatives though, Hoover wasn't too crazy about facts that disproved his own ideas, although he didn't have Fox News to cover for him. He did spout a lot of things along the line of today's conservatives about "America is the best at _______" (fill in the blank), although facts would contradict some of those things, just as today. Declaring that we're the best at everything was not a way to deal with problems and flaws in Hoover's time, nor today, but Hoover often eventually relented. Some modern conservatives have done everything they can to disavow Hoover, since they are NEVER wrong, just as their philosophy of deregulation had nothing to do with the financial meltdown in 2008. If you believe that, would you like to buy the Washington Monument? I'll sell it to you. Like today's conservatives, Hoover also tried to revise his role in history by continuing to advocate for his policies, pretty much stating they would have succeeded had the country stuck with him instead of turning to Roosevelt. The ultimate thing was, Hoover and his administration misjudged the severity of the economic downturn more than just at its beginning and therefore Hoover's  prescription of trying to restore confidence by helping banks, railroads, and business in general was inadequate to deal with it,* as too many Americans had little or no money left to up demand for goods and services. Confidence helps when people HAVE money, but are afraid to spend it, or even deposit it in banks. Even the larger expenditures by New Deal programs under Roosevelt couldn't quickly help the beleaguered economy to recovery quickly; that's how bad things were.

Over time Hoover's image did recover to some degree, but some people still detested him decades later. It bears repeating, Hoover was not a true progressive nor a true conservative during his presidency, but he most definitely took on the mantle of conservatism after he left office, accompanied by that delusional belief that he had not deviated from American individualism and by his extreme bitterness. The passing of time and the political atmosphere surrounding Hoover had progressives eventually discover (or perhaps rediscover) Hoover's progressive side, which then gave reactionaries something to point to, in the sense, "If progressives like some things about Hoover, he can't be a conservative."

The economic and financial meltdown in 2008 rekindled interest in Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Depression, in general, as people wanted to see how that major historical event developed and was handled all of those decades ago. The problem is, in more recent times, many people obviously knew little or nothing about the Great Depression, as they seemed to want to experience such an event in their own lifetime; thus we had awful policies put into place, or policies that were not enforced, bringing instability and a virtual total collapse of the American and world economies. While most of the perpetrators have been Republicans, some Democrats seemed anxious to be a part of this "let's see what kind of a great depression we can create" philosophy. Throughout the build up to the 2008 meltdown lay the bizarre and troubling idea of "the country should be concerned with the plight of millionaires and billionaires; they've got it tough," instead of what had been happening to the middle class and the poor. These groups would suffer even more from the economic mess of what has been called "the Great Recession." While Republicans scoffed at President Obama's remedies (also often at Ben Bernanke's policies, the Federal Reserve Chief), the economic plunge of late 2008 and early 2009 was halted, and matters never got out of hand as they did in the early 1930s, but recovery has been slow, just as it was in the 1930s. The problem this time was, some of the structural problems were not corrected, like with the banking industry, which has made me think Democrats too haven't studied the policies of their own political icon, Franklin D. Roosevelt. In my opinion, while health care reform was a very important policy, financial reform should have been the first item on the agenda after the stimulus package, but it was not. By the time financial reform was put on the front burner, the political situation had changed drastically, with a resurgent, ideologically fire-breathing GOP, invigorated by the unpopular health care law debate at that time, able to get a substantial watering down of financial reform. We'll see if all of this comes back to haunt us.    

Almost all that I've written in this three part series about Hoover comes from memory, and over the years, I've read a lot of books (some many times over) and articles about him, including his own memoirs. With so much done from memory, it's tough to "credit" specific authors for the information I've put into these articles, and some might not want to be "credited," since it is given from the perspective I've developed on Hoover over the decades (I mean this both seriously and humorously). I guess the biggest compliment to any and all of the authors is that I read their material and retained a good deal of it, that's how good the information was. What I've decided to do is to list a number of books I've read over the years which dealt in large part with Herbert Hoover. Some were more specific biographies of Hoover, others were not just about Hoover, but they dealt with parts of his life, most especially his presidency and his attempts to halt the Great Depression. Some of these books I no longer have on hand, and this list will certainly not be complete, as I'm sure I've read some books or articles years ago, the names of which I no longer recall.

"Herbert Hoover" by William Leuchtenburg; "The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover," 3 volumes by Herbert Hoover (there may be abridged/condensed versions available, but I'm not sure); "American Individualism" by Herbert Hoover; "Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive" by Joan Hoff; "An Uncommon Man-The Triumph of Herbert Hoover" by Richard Norton Smith; "Herbert Hoover-A Public Life" by David Burner; "The American Political Tradition" by Richard Hofstadter (has a very good chapter on Hoover: "Herbert Hoover and the Crisis of American Individualism"); "Herbert Hoover and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation" by James Stuart Olson; "The Great Depression" by John Garraty (obviously not just about Hoover); "The Great Depression-America 1929-1941" by Robert S. McElvaine (again, not just about Hoover, but with very good info and opinions on him-one of my favorite books on the subject); "Herbert Hoover and Harry S. Truman-A Documentary History" edited by Timothy Walch and Dwight M. Miller; "The Great Crash of 1929" by John Kenneth Galbraith; "The First New Deal" by Raymond Moley (has some info about the New Deal's ties to Hoover)

* To be honest, Democrats didn't know what the hell to do about the Great Depression either, thus they really didn't put forward many plans during Hoover's term, fearful they would then take part of the blame if the plans didn't work. FDR talked about "experimentation" in his inaugural speech, which tells you he wasn't exactly confident about specific plans either. 

WORD HISTORY:
Boor/Bower-These closely related words go back to Indo European "bu/bhu," which meant "dwell, live upon/on." They are closely related to the second part of "neighbor" (British spelling: "neighbour"), as neighbor simply means "a person (or people) who dwell(s) nearby," literally "nigh-dweller." The Indo European form gave its Old Germanic offspring "buraz," with the meaning "place where one dwells." This gave Old English "gebur," which meant "dweller, farmer," and also "bur," which meant "dwelling, cottage, hut, room for dwelling," but also meant "farmer, peasant," likely from the notion, "one who dwells in a hut/cottage in the countryside." This then became "bour," before "bower," by which time it also had taken on the meaning "lady's living quarter's in a palace/castle," as well as the "area in a garden sheltered by trees or leafy plants." "The Bowery" of New York City was simply a continuation of the Dutch term for what was then (the 1600s) an area with farms. As for "boor," it seems to have died out, but came back to English as a borrowing in the earlier 1500s from either Low German "bur," Dutch "boer," as England had much trade with northwestern Europe. It came into more prevalent usage in the late 1800s and early 1900s from contact and conflict with Dutch settlers in southern Africa who were called "Boers." The conflict between the Boers and British settlers and colonial authorities was termed "the Boer Wars" (there were two). The term "boorish," meaning "rude, ill-mannered or crude behavior," came from the notion of "behavior by farm/rural residents, as compared to the sophisticated behavior of city dwellers." The other Germanic languages have lots of relatives to English "bower" and "boor," some of which are: German has "Bauer" (pronounced very much like "bower"), which means both "farmer/peasant" and "birdcage" (from the sense "room, enclosed dwelling area"); Low German Saxon has "buur" (farmer); Dutch has both "buur" (neighbor) and "boer" (farmer);West Frisian has "boer" (peasant/farmer); Swedish, Danish and Norwegian have "bur" (cage); Icelandic has "búr" (cage).

Herbert Hoover: March Toward Reactionary, Part Two

During his lifetime, Herbert Hoover marched from moderate progressive toward a position on the solid political right; that is, he became something of a reactionary. I say "something of," because it is difficult to actually tell what Hoover truly believed at times, as in my opinion, he lived in a bit of a dream world where his words were often in denial of the actions he had taken. That dream world consisted of the American system which he had come to idealize; the system he had lived in and prospered in for his life up to the point of the Great Depression. It was a system of neighborliness, of voluntarism, of cooperation to help others, and it was a system where private business ruled, but where private business also needed a bit of government regulation to keep a check on ruthless exploiters (Hoover had been a supporter of progressive reformer Teddy Roosevelt). Hoover had been overseas a good part of his adult life, so he had seen many other parts of the world, including Europe during and after World War One. He had seen powerful rulers suppress their people and he had seen the absolute horrific results of  (then) modern warfare. He returned to the United States to serve in Woodrow Wilson's administration during America's time in the war, only to leave for Europe after the war to help feed starving Europeans and to sit in on the peace conference that officially ended the war. He came back home and took a position in Warren Harding's administration as Secretary of Commerce, which then led to his own successful run for the presidency. Wherever he served he had been known for his tremendous energy and his organizational abilities. Now to continue with some of the actions he took during the Great Depression, especially with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation from "Part One." (For those who need a refresher about the first part, or for new visitors, click here for "Part One:" http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/06/herbert-hoover-march-toward-reactionary_15.html

Hoover's Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) had some success in 1932, and the economy actually saw a mild tick upwards and confidence improved a great deal as the number of bank failures dropped dramatically, but confidence could not put food on the table nor money into empty pockets, and the economy continued in its depressed condition, with high unemployment. Franklin Roosevelt used the RFC much more than Hoover, as FDR wasn't as dogmatic in his approach to getting money into the economy as the methodical Hoover, and parts of the RFC were made into separate agencies under Roosevelt, like the Public Works Administration (PWA), for instance. Hoover and Congress expanded the RFC in mid 1932 to include aid to strapped states to help the unemployed and poor, an idea finally embraced by Hoover, as he belatedly admitted that private charities and state and local governments could not cope with the extent of the increasing poverty. The expanded RFC, besides its original purpose primarily to shore  up struggling banks, was also to provide loans for state and local public works projects and loans to agricultural entities, with the ultimate goal that all of this would generate employment to give the economy a boost toward recovery. The public works projects had to have some means of raising money on their own to help guarantee the repayment of the loans, as well as provide for continued operation and maintenance after they were built, so this was not a program where people were to be put to work digging ditches without purpose. Two of the problems with the program were, Hoover and his administration put limitations on the RFC by having the government charge higher interest rates than private loan institutions, so as not to compete with them, but the whole point was, the loans were NOT being provided by private lending institutions anyway, as they were generally holding onto their cash, and the main economic problem was not the lack of loans for businesses to expand, but a lack of demand by strapped consumers, the solving, or partial solving, of which would have created demand, which then would have led to a true demand for loans by businesses to expand production and to hire more workers. Second, the administration set the terms requiring loans to be repaid within the atypically short period of ten years. Hoover would not agree to use any of the money as "grants," only as "loans," and that mentality had the RFC giving close scrutiny to applications, fearful that the money could not be paid back. This meant that applicants faced almost the same requirements from the RFC as they faced from private bankers, but at a higher interest rate! Needless to say, applications were often sparse for many things and the process of approving the applications that were made took a good deal of time. Further, as the Obama administration found out early on, getting most projects mapped out, applied for, engineered and tweaked, took time, thus few projects were even approved or underway by the time Hoover left office in March 1933, with the "glory" then going to FDR as the projects finally started.*

Much the same happened with the relief expansion part of the RFC, as Hoover's administration made each state go through a pretty rigid approval process to show that the state had indeed exhausted its funds and had done all it could to help its own unemployed and poor. Even after jumping through the hoops, some states were given paltry sums compared to their actual needs. This all left many Americans embittered and angry at Hoover, but again, this was typical Hoover, where method was something of a result in itself.** In fairness, this was all new to America and Hoover deserves credit for making the changes, limitations or not, as without his having done all of this beforehand, FDR would likely have had a more difficult time, as Hoover's term showed that past policies didn't work, and that Hoover's new policies were too limited or too cumbersome to effectively halt the decline or bring about recovery, but that these new policies had promise, if they weren't hamstrung by the administration. The Roosevelt administration used the RFC to far better service right up through World War Two than did Hoover, even though it was Hoover's creation.

While a large number of banks had collapsed throughout the 1920s, with far higher numbers during the Great Depression, one of the enduring legacies of the Great Depression was the national panic during the waning days of Hoover's term in office. In 1932 the RFC had bolstered a number of banks, and while some banks still failed, including some that had received aid, the banking system appeared to have stabilized. Most of the failed banks came from generally rural areas, but failures in smaller cities had increased. The appearance of stabilization was all an illusion, as general business conditions were very depressed and, as unemployment remained high, many Americans had little or no money to become the consumers American businesses needed to prosper. Farming communities were very hard pressed, as were urban industrial centers. All of this was bound to have dire consequences for the American banking system.

Receiving loans from the RFC turned out to be a double-edged sword, as Congress mandated that the RFC turn over periodic lists of recipient banks to them. The names of the banks were at first to remain out of the public domain. The idea was, if you heard that your bank had received RFC money, you might very reasonably assume that your bank had been in trouble, and might still be in trouble. This could then prompt you and other depositors to run to the bank to withdraw deposits and this would then bring about a possible failure of that bank. Well Congress, unhappy with some loans, wanted the names of the banks made public, and while it didn't exactly cause a panic, it made many a depositor of these banks nervous. At first though, with the banks seeming to have stabilized, it didn't cause much of a stir, but that would change. Further, some banks in need of help "may" have forgone seeking RFC help for the fear of their public image.

Franklin Roosevelt convincingly defeated Hoover in the 1932 election, but the very fact that a change in administrations was coming made some uneasy, as FDR had tried to steer clear of a commitment to any specific policies during the campaign. In those times, presidents were sworn into office on March 4, not January 20, as today, and during such an economic meltdown this extra period of time just served for even more calamity, with a politically defeated outgoing administration still in power, and a politically victorious new administration waiting to take the reins of power. In the interim period, Hoover tried to get Roosevelt to commit to certain economic policies, essentially Hoover's policies, something FDR would not do (correctly, as the country had just overwhelmingly rejected Hoover). This likely contributed to the uncertainty and shakiness of early 1933, but it was also not the primary cause of the banking crisis, as Hoover conveniently later said. Hoover was the last president to take office in March, as the amendment (the 20th Amendment)  to change the inauguration of presidents to January 20 was ratified in early 1933.
   
One of the industrial powerhouses of the nation was Detroit, where the auto industry had taken a major hit from the Great Depression, with a large percentage of production shut down. With prolonged high unemployment the Detroit banks suffered accordingly. In early 1933, a couple of large Detroit banks were on the verge of collapse and the RFC stepped in to to help, also seeking assurances from none other than large depositor Henry Ford that he would remain a depositor of the banks, something to which he would not commit. The fear that Ford would withdraw his money from the banks prompted the governor of the state to declare a bank holiday to head off the collapse. The news shook the country and other states began to follow suit in closing their banks for a time. The whole situation caused panic, as Americans, terrified they would lose their money (remember, no deposit insurance back then) or not have access to needed funds, raced to their banks before they were shut out. With many banks closed by their states and Americans so fearful of losing their money, spending dried up even more, sending the economy into another plunge.

There will be one more part ....       
 
* The "stimulus bill" passed very early in the Obama administration was to provide funding for many "shovel ready projects." The President later lamented there weren't many such projects available, as again, states and local governments had basic plans they wanted to develop, if and when they got the money, but then actually preparing those plans to go forward with firm architectural and engineering designs, public hearings (many cites and states require public hearings on such plans), modified zoning (if needed), any new roads or other infrastructure needed to support the project and the proper contracts, took much more time than "shovel ready." Someone didn't read or know their history, because Hoover's administration suffered from the same problem in 1932, with many projects terribly delayed and a demanding public furious that everything took so long.

** When Hoover was administering food programs in Europe during and after World War One, the overhead for such programs was astoundingly small and his vaunted "efficiency" was seen as an example of how to help people, but with almost all of the funds going directly to those in need and not to administrative costs, but Hoover also was dealing with many volunteers and charitable contributions back then, including from governments, a fact he did not publicly talk about, which did put a somewhat deceiving gloss to the process, and there's no question in my mind that all of this colored his thinking about the efficiency and voluntary cooperation efforts he tried later as president. Hoover's omission of telling about the large contributions of governments, including that of the United States, was part of that dream world he lived in, where he wanted so much to believe that people would voluntarily help other human beings that he was in denial about how far such help would go. Like today's conservatives, to admit government helps anyone is to admit failure of your own philosophy.

WORD HISTORY:
Rear (2)-English has a couple of words spelled "rear," this is the word meaning "hind part, back of, last part." The ultimate origin of this word is unknown. It goes back to Latin "retro," which meant "back, behind," a form of which was inherited by Old French as "riere" and then used in the compound "rerewarde," used in military terminology for "the rear guard." Another form, Latin "adretro," which meant "to the rear," was inherited by Old French as "ariere" (which was borrowed by English and became English "arrear"). It is unclear if English got "rear" by using a short form of French "rerewarde" or from a shortened form of "arrear." It is common to call the military units behind the front the "rear" or simply "the rear," so that might well be the source.  

Good Provençal-Like Dip or Spread

Photo added 6/18/2016

If you like olives, you'll love this mixture, which can be used as a dip for veggies or chips, or you can spread it on toast or crackers. I took the basic recipe from "Fresh Herb Cooking" by Linda Dannenberg, 2001, which had a recipe "Provencal Olive-Rosemary Butter,"* but I substituted cream cheese and sour cream/mayo for the butter. I use the soft whipped cream cheese, because it's easy to mix with the other ingredients, but you could use the packaged cream cheese and let it sit out to soften. This is simple:

1  8 ounce tub of plain whipped cream cheese
1 tablespoon sour cream
1 teaspoon mayonnaise
1 teaspoon minced garlic
3 to 4 tablespoons of chopped black olives, preferably Kalamata olives
splash of brine from the olives
1 tablespoon chopped fresh rosemary
1 teaspoon ground black pepper

To a tub of whipped cream cheese mix in about a tablespoon of sour cream and one teaspoon mayo. Add about a teaspoon of minced garlic, 3-4 tablespoons of pitted and chopped black olives (I use Kalamata olives in brine, and I add a splash of the brine to the mixture**), a tablespoon of fresh chopped rosemary (or you could add a little less of  dried rosemary), and about a teaspoon of freshly ground pepper. No salt is needed because the olives and brine have enough salt. Let it sit briefly, or put it in the refrigerator for an hour or two.

* Provençal means it comes from "Provence," a region of southern France with such well known cities as Nice, Cannes, Toulon, and Marseille. "Provençal" also is the name of the language from that region, which has several dialects, all now being overtaken by standard French, to which Provençal is related, as it too is Latin based, but with fewer influences from Germanic Frankish.  

** I use a brand of Greek Kalamata olives called "Krinos," which I buy in a small clear plastic container. In my opinion they have the best flavor for this recipe, because they haven't added all sorts of other spices to the brine as some other brands do. Those added spices then conflict with the recipe in my opinion; then again, you may like it that way.

On some toasted wheat bread and along with some potato chips.

WORD HISTORY:
Olive-The ultimate origin of this word is unknown, but it is assumed by many to have come from some ancient eastern Mediterranean language, where olive trees were indigenous, and where the oil from the olives was highly important, and this then provided a basis for the word "oil."^ Ancient Greek had "elaiva/elaiwa," which meant both "olive tree," as well as its fruit "olive." Latin borrowed the term from Greek as "oliva," which then was inherited by Latin-based Old French as "olive." English borrowed the word from French during the 1200s. 

^ For the history of the the word "oil," see: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/05/oil-debate-spills-over.html

Herbert Hoover-March Toward Reactionary

I've written a good bit about Herbert Hoover, including the recent, "Herbert Hoover: Good or Bad?" To view any of the articles where Hoover is more than just mentioned, go to the bottom of this article and click on "Herbert Hoover" in the "labels" section. This will take you to all of the other articles. In my opinion, Hoover, while not a successful president, was a very important president, because he was a transitional figure who tried using many of the old ways to combat the nation's most severe economic downturn, but who then turned to new ways, albeit with many self imposed limitations. Herbert Hoover lived more than three decades after he left the presidency and I remember his funeral in 1964, which was carried on television back then. He was the first former president to die in my lifetime and I took great interest in the events surrounding the death of the 90 year old Hoover and he was discussed in my school classes too. With his death coming only a year after the assassination of President Kennedy, I'm sure that focused a lot of attention too, as prior to that, the last president to die was Franklin Roosevelt in 1945.

As I noted, Hoover was something of a transitional president, finally willing to abandon tradition in favor of new ideas and programs, although often grudgingly doing so. The interesting thing is, Franklin Roosevelt, his successor, became renowned for his efforts to combat the Great Depression with his "New Deal," but Hoover was scorned by much of the American public and even out and out hated by some. Why the difference? For one thing, being in the "broad middle" of the American political spectrum at certain times can be a very dangerous place to be. The Great Depression tried the nation's patience with Hoover, as his methodical, often doctrinaire approach ignited strong animosity from a large part of an American public stricken by poverty or the fear of falling into poverty. On the other hand, arch conservatives felt he did too much. Hoover had come out of the progressive wing of the Republican Party (progressives were a fairly substantial element of the GOP in those times), but he wasn't a "true believer," he had limits to his progressivism, although he later abandoned some of those limits. Some saw him as a conservative as president, but he wasn't a "true believer" on that side either. With Americans split between those demanding bold, decisive action and those fearful of breaking new ground, Hoover was sort of trapped in between, although, as I mentioned, many saw him as a more conservative president. The reason is likely that "Hoover the conservative" was always trying to down play "Hoover the progressive." He never really jumped onto the bandwagon of change, even when he initiated it, as he preferred to try to link his change programs to some sort of continuity with the past, as if there were no real breaks in policy. FDR had no such reluctance about embracing change, although he and Hoover shared much the same basic philosophy (Hoover would later change, as I will note later on). Roosevelt publicly embraced change, but privately worried about some of the potential consequences of that change.

With Hoover so reluctant to admit to having changed anything, FDR and his advisers took some of Hoover's ideas and programs, tweaked and expanded them, and then claimed them as their own, leaving Hoover with no credit whatsoever. Hoover's personality made him a bit of an odd guy to be president, although that isn't quite fair. In an age when radio was a great means of communication with the public, and sound movies had replaced silent films, Hoover was shy and very serious. He was not a great communicator, especially when compared to FDR's jovial, inspirational personality. On the other hand, Hoover might look downright dashing compared to his predecessor Calvin Coolidge. When the dour Coolidge died and someone told one reporter who had covered him that the former president was dead, the reporter asked, "How can you tell?"

Hoover's really big change idea came with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, known by its initials "RFC." First, a little background. Why were banks in trouble? You go to a bank for a loan and they want collateral. You give them property, jewelry, or some other valuable items sufficient to secure the loan. The problem was, the depression brought a big decline in the value of everything, leaving banks (and other financial institutions) exposed to losses. Further, financial institutions had loaned money for companies and individuals to buy stocks, with the stock used as collateral. When the stock market imploded the value of stocks dropped leaving the institutions with losses. Also, financial institutions and insurance companies invested in stocks and bonds, with the same resulting losses. Many banks were located in rural agricultural areas. With American agriculture already in dismal condition throughout much of the 1920s, many rural banks collapsed even prior to what is generally seen as the start of the Great Depression in 1929, an event that sent more rural banks into closure. In those times, there was no system of insurance for bank deposits, so when Americans got rattled, they headed to their bank and demanded their deposits in cash, fearful they otherwise would lose their money. With banks already strapped by losses for many of the above noted reasons, coming up with large cash sums to pay depositors off was difficult. Some assets they possessed could be turned into cash fairly quickly (this is called "liquidity"), but other items took longer to sell, if they could even be sold at the depressed prices then prevalent. In order to get help from the Federal Reserve, a bank had to belong to the Fed's system. In those times, many banks didn't belong and other financial institutions couldn't belong, so there was nowhere for them to turn for help.

A couple of years into the Great Depression, Hoover tried one of his voluntary cooperative programs, this one to shore up the banking system. Hoover called together a number of the country's bank executives and got them to pool some money to loan to other banks that were experiencing difficulty. The bankers were reluctant to do so and really seem to have preferred government intervention, but they gave a lukewarm effort to satisfy the President. The thing was, they were so fearful of losing their money to the troubled banks, they set tough criteria for borrowing banks to meet and more banks failed. It wasn't long before Hoover saw that voluntary cooperation doesn't always work and he got Congress to approve the RFC. Hoover had been a businessman, he had appealed to business people for humanitarian aid during and after World War I, he was involved with business as Secretary of Commerce, so he had a strong connection to business giving him a business point of view, which coupled with his engineering mindset, gave him a zealousness for "efficiency," which then hampered the success of the RFC program. The RFC took government directly into economic matters. It was set up to loan government money directly to troubled banks and other financial institutions and to railroads and to farm boards for seed loans. The idea was, if financial institutions were stabilized, the public would gain confidence, the run on banks by depositors would cease and such institutions would then lend money to business people and the economy would recover. The problem was, many in the public were broke, so lack of demand stood in the way of any strong recovery, plus, banks took the RFC loans to stabilize themselves, but NOT to then loan money out in the troubled economy.* One of the problems was, that the Hoover mindset, and it seems even more so the mindset of the business people running the RFC, made qualifying for a loan a bit difficult, when the program was set up to make loans that were intended to be a bit risky and that would not be made by private business. Further, by making loans to banks and railroads, but NOT to states and local entities to feed and help the masses of unemployed and destitute families, Hoover was seen, correctly, as being for "trickle down" economics. During the period leading up to this point, Hoover had fretted and lectured Americans about maintaining their individualism and their commitment to self help, a sense he noted that would be damaged if Americans took government money. As the bank and railroad loans were handed out, many Americans took notice that their president had no such worries that bankers and railroad execs would have their individualism and sense of self help damaged, only the poor and unemployed, as well as many small banks and financial institutions. Money provided to the lower end likely would have helped the economy much more, as it would have created demand for goods, as the recipients were going to spend that money, not hoard much of it. 

More in "Part Two" ...

* This should sound somewhat familiar, as the bank bailouts a few years ago helped banks recover, but the banks then maintained very high credit standards so that few companies or people qualified for loans, which  left the economy to very slowly recover.

WORD HISTORY:
Lust (List)-This word, closely related to the "list" of "listless" (see below), goes back to Indo European "las," which had the notion of "be eager, want to do, desire." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "lustuz," with the same general meanings, but also "pleasure," likely from the notion that "things you are eager to do give you pleasure." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "lust," with the same meanings. Later, as religious writings began to be translated into English, "lust" took on the foremost meaning of "sexual desire," which remains its primary meaning to this day. The verb later developed from the noun. The same Old Germanic source also produced a verb "lustijanan," a verb which meant "to please, to bring pleasure, to cause desire." This then gave Old English "lystan," with those same meanings. This later became "liste" and then "list" (not related to "list," as in grocery list), an archaic word by itself now, but still used as the first part of the compound "listless;" that is, "lacking in desire or pleasure." The other Germanic languages have: German has various forms of "lust/list," some of which are, "Lust," a noun meaning "desire/have an inclination to do something," used frequently like, "Hast du Lust Karten zu spielen?" (literally, "Do you have the desire to play cards?"), and it also means "take pleasure in doing something; enjoy doing," but it can also have the "sexual desire" meaning. German also has "lustig," which, like its close English relative "lusty," doesn't necessarily carry the sexual connotation, but rather generally means "happy, merry," as in "Die Lustige Witwe," "The Merry Widow." The German verb "gelüsten" means "to crave, to covet;" that is, "have strong desire for." The German noun "Lüstling," however, carries the sexual appetite idea and means "lecher." Low German Saxon has both "Lust," meaning "desire," and the noun "Lüst" ("appetite;" that is, of course, "desire for food") and the verb "lüsten" ("to have an appetite, or craving") Dutch has "lust," which means "be inclined to do something, desire, like/relish doing." West Frisian once had "lust," but apparently it is now little used, if not outright archaic. Danish and Norwegian have "lyst" (desire, inclination, strong desire, pleasure). Icelandic has "losta," which seems to carry both the general meaning "desire," but also of the sexual type. Swedish has "lust" (desire, yearning).

Asking A Democrat A Few Questions

Hi folks! This is Dan Ratherbe in Philadelphia, as promised, with a Democrat who will answer all questions today with no holds barred. My guest is John Wussywuss.

DR: Welcome Mr. Wussywuss.

JW: I'm glad to be here, I think. I'm a little nervous. Don't make those questions too tough now.

DR: First, is it true if a Republican shouts "boo," that many Democrats jump into bed and pull the covers over their heads?

JW: No, that's not entirely true, because I bury my head under the pillow, but I actually prefer to use two pillows. Besides, those mean old Republicans don't always scare me, I sleep with the light on. 

DR: Is it true that President Obama has said he believes the Indians made a good deal with the Dutch in trading a few trinkets for Manhattan?

JW: Well, I believe what he said was that he felt the Indians bargained too hard with the Dutch and that they should have scaled back their offer before hitting the Dutch with such demands. After all, the Dutch offered some good trinkets. You couldn't find trinkets like that just anywhere, since that was before the five and dime stores were founded.

DR: Some have said President Obama negotiates with himself. How does he tell who wins? 

JW: I believe Harry Reid tells him. You know, Harry was once a boxer, but not any more. 

DR: I'm sure you remember that Governor Deval of Massachusetts said at last year's Democratic Convention that Democrats need to grow a spine. Do you agree?

JW: We have a spine, and besides, that guy's going to get us into trouble saying things like that. Going to get the Republicans mad, then where will we be? Just like those people who wanted the "public option" in the health care law. Geez, if we'd have pushed for that, the Republicans would have thrown everything into stopping the law from passing.

DR: You mean they didn't throw everything into trying to stop health care from passing? After all Mr. Wussywuss, Republicans and their allies far outspent supporters of the health care law.

JW: I think I've said enough on this subject. You're aiming to get me into trouble with the Republicans too. Next they won't even sit with me in the lunch room.

DR: You mean some Republicans actually sit with you?

JW: No, but is that any way to get them to start?

DR: Okay, last question. How many Democrats believe the jellyfish should be be the symbol of the party?

JW: Oh I really can't say at the moment. At last count the jellyfish was neck and neck with a one day old fawn. I kind of favor the fawn, they're cute.

DR: Thank you Mr. John Wussywuss. You've just heard Mr. Wussywuss talk about the Democratic Party, President Obama and the public option on health care.

JW: Shhhh! Hush! There you go with that public option stuff again. I'm tellin' you. You're going to get the Republicans all stirred up and they'll be shouting "boo" at me before I even get home and I don't have any pillows with me. You don't care, leaving a poor guy defenseless. What's that?

DR: It's just your shadow Mr. Wussywuss.

JW: Are you sure it's not Mitch McConnell or Eric Cantor?       

WORD HISTORY:
Rear (rere)-English has a couple of words "rear," and this is the archaic and dialectal one that formed the first part of "rearmouse" (once also spelled "reremouse"), which was long the main English word for "bat" (the animal), a word that remained in use dialectically after "bat" replaced it. It goes back to Indo European "khere/khera," which had the meaning of "mix, stir," but with the underlying notion being "motion or movement used to mix something." This gave its Old Germanic offspring a form something like "hrerazjana," which had the same meanings. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hreran," which meant "to shake, to agitate, to move," and this then became "reren." As other words replaced the meanings of "reren," it seems to have been confined to the above mentioned forms of the first part of a compound that meant "bat," with the movement/agitation idea combined with "mouse," to give "fluttering mouse, mouse that stirs/agitates the air." Some of the Germanic relatives of "rear/rere" are still around, as German still has "rühren" (whose older form was spelled "hruoren"), which still means, among other things, "to stir/mix ingredients, move ones limbs or fingers;" Low German Saxon has "röhren;" Dutch has "roeren," which means "to stir, to beat/whip (sauce or batter), to shake;" West Frisian has "oanroere" (a compound which means "touch," once also a secondary meaning in English, and still used in German along with the similar to Frisian "anrühren"); Danish and Norwegian have "røre," meaning "to stir;" Icelandic has "hraera," meaning "stir;" Swedish has "röra," which means "stir, move, touch." Notice that Icelandic is the only Germanic language to retain the initial "h" from long ago. Also, the "touch" meaning can be in the sense "affect," as in, "Their gift touched me deeply." 

Jean Stapleton Was No Dingbat

I wrote this when Jean Stapleton passed away in 2013.

Jean Stapleton and her "Edith" character have both been national treasures. The Ediths of the world make it a better place, as they deal with the difficult people around them and as they try to do the right thing, even when it hurts, often making the plotters and schemers uncomfortable. While her television husband Archie touted himself as a Christian, Edith was the practicing Christian, always trying to be a calming influence on her angry, bigoted, temperamental husband, who called her a "dingbat." While Archie blustered and lashed out at the changing world around him, Edith played the understanding wife.

Jean Stapleton passed away May 31, 2013 at the age of 90. Nothing I write here could possibly do justice to what others have written or said about her. She gave us some delightful and hilarious moments in the 1970s, as well as some solemn ones too. R.I.P. Jean Stapleton, we'll miss you.

NOTE: I did an article in 2012 about "All In The Family," so for those interested: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2012/04/archie-bunker-lives-on.html 

 Photo of Jean Stapleton from the 1977 Tony Awards which was televised on the ABC network. (Photo is a public domain photo taken from Wikipdia)

WORD HISTORY:
Bat-This is the noun for the flying mammal. The "bat," as in "baseball bat," is likely not the same word, or even related, although the origins of "bat, the animal," are uncertain. English seems to have borrowed it from a dialect of Old Norse, which had "blaka, bakka," as forms with the meaning "flapper." At least "bakka" quite obviously came to be applied to the mammal, but in compounds like Swedish "nat(t)bakka" (night bat). Where Old Norse, from the North Germanic branch of Germanic (English is from the West Germanic branch), got the term is also unclear, as it seems to only appear in North Germanic, except that English borrowed it. With Old Norse speaking settlements in England, mainly in the north and east, the word seems to have taken quite some time to finally become the main word for "the flying mammal," and by that time the pronunciation had changed the "k" sound to "t." The original English word for "bat" was "hreremus," which then became "reremouse" and "rearmouse," with the literal meaning being more or less "flapping/fluttering mouse." (I've previously covered "mouse" and I'll be covering "rere/rear" soon). I can't be certain, but I seem to remember hearing "rearmouse" even used by some old timers when I was a kid, right after the Spanish-American War (I stole your punchline), but I'm far from certain about that. Anyway, "bat" finally became the standard English word like in the late 1500s or early 1600s, but "rearmouse" did remain in use as a dialect word. German has "Fledermaus" (pronounced much like "flayder-mouse"), also the name of a famous operetta by Johann Strauss, again pretty much "flutter(ing) mouse."

The Middle Class And The Poor Are Lousy At Class Warfare

This was first published in June 2013, but it is still relevant in too many ways, especially with Republicans now totally in charge. 

Back when George W. Bush was still president, renowned businessman Warren Buffett commented that there had been class warfare waged in America for a couple of decades, and that his class, the very rich, had been the class waging that war and that indeed his class was winning. Since Buffett's remarks, we've seen an economic meltdown largely triggered and made so horrendous by housing and mortgage manipulation by, ah well, Buffett's class, none of whom spent a day in jail, let alone in prison, as they claimed they hadn't known about all of the mortgages issued to people who hadn't yet been carted off to the coroner's office.* Even then, when forced to give up part of multimillion dollar bonuses, some of the perpetrators kicked, shouted and screamed how unfair all of this was, some seeming to show ingratitude to the taxpayers who helped bail out their banks as well as their own sorry asses. This opened a new front in class warfare, as the guilty were let off, but the poor were blamed for the plunging economy and skyrocketing unemployment, and since then the war on the poor has escalated. Since the economy hit bottom in 2009, it has made a slow, but fairly steady recovery, but with almost all income gains going to ah, Buffett's class. Meanwhile, cuts are being made, or proposed, to food programs in many states and have been proposed nationally. The Republicans, who have made no secret that they favor ah, Buffett's class, lost the presidential election in 2012, but such cuts may come under a Democratic president.**  

So let me set this out there for you: since Reagan and the conservative philosophy came to prevail, taxes were cut, especially for the rich (which we were told would not create budget deficits). Jobs were first sent to what were generally non union, generally lower wage states, putting pressure on wages for middle class people and the working poor. Then trade deals were promoted with countries where workers make a fraction of what American workers make, with whole plants eventually being transferred to some of these countries by those great patriots of ah, Buffett's class. With wages stagnant or falling for many Americans, conservatives appealed to those people's desire to maintain life style by offering tax cuts (to also help pay their growing credit bills often brought about by the attempt to bridge incomes with credit buying), which then brought serious budget deficits, which brought calls for cuts to programs for poor people to help balance the budget, the number of whom has been growing because of all of the above. The vicious cycle continues, although recently more revenues will be added from ah, Buffett's class. As Warren Buffett told politicians to "quit coddling the rich." You think maybe we should listen?   

* When defaults on mortgages grew, housing prices began to plummet, and the effects of job transfers overseas and the downward pressure on wages for the non wealthy had people who had paid their mortgages for years swept up in the resulting carnage.  

** All of this traces back to the 2010 election. For more on why, see: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-2010-was-such-important-election.html
  
WORD HISTORY:
Rare-This is the word meaning "uncommon, scare," as the word with the same spelling, but meaning, "not fully cooked," is a different word. "Rare" goes back to Indo European "re," which had the notion of "loose, divide;" thus, "solitary, thin, scarce." This gave its Latin offspring "rarus," with much the same "solitary, thin, scarce" meanings. Old French, a Latin based language, inherited the word as "rere," meaning "uncommon, sparse." English borrowed the word from French in the 1400s.

Herbert Hoover: Good or Bad?

First published in June 2013


Quite by accident recently I came across a question posed on "Answerbag," about whether Herbert Hoover was a good or a bad man. "Answerbag" is an Internet site (Answerbag.com) where you can ask a question and other "members'' can provide their own answers. While I was not a member, I quickly joined to answer this particular question, although I'm sure there are other topics I may explore there too. This is the answer I gave, although I've added a little more here, as I've had time to think this over and I realized that I'd left out a thing or two. Here is what I posted on Answerbag.com with the few additions:

Herbert Hoover is one of my historical interests, so this is from memory, so bear that in mind, but I'd say I'm accurate on the actual historical element, but of course, the rest is my opinion. Herbert Hoover was something of the epitome of the American rags to riches story. He was orphaned at a young age, but went on to graduate from Stanford University and go on to a successful career in mining engineering. It's important to remember, you can't judge people from those times by today's standards and really be fair about it. He was a millionaire by the time he was in his 30s, then turning to public service to "give back" for his good fortune (he was a Quaker). 

While he certainly paid attention to politics, he didn't make his political affiliation public until much later, although he supported Teddy Roosevelt's run as the Progressive Bull Moose Party candidate in 1912. He then served in Woodrow Wilson's administration, so many people assumed he was a Democrat. As others here noted (there were other responses to the question), he helped feed many Europeans during and after World War One, and he was seen by many as an international hero. For the 1920 election Hoover publicly declared himself a Republican and made a lukewarm try for the nomination. When Harding won the election, Hoover joined his administration as Secretary of Commerce, and he continued in that position when Coolidge replaced Harding, who had died in office. Coolidge then won a term in his own right. Earlier Hoover had toyed with the idea of deficit spending and public works' jobs during economic downturns, actually somewhat in advance of John Maynard Keynes, and he influenced Harding to dip his toes in the water over public jobs during a sharp downturn early in Harding's term. While innovative, historians/economists have generally felt the minimal use of the idea at that time was not enough to really say how much it helped the economy. While this idea and Hoover's support of Teddy Roosevelt and his service to Wilson put him on the progressive side of the GOP (there was such in those times), this turned out to be somewhat misleading later on. 

While the 1920s were called "the Roaring 20s," there were serious economic issues underlying the economy, especially in agriculture (which affected the banking system). When Coolidge chose not to run in 1928, Hoover made the move, got the nomination and won a pretty convincing election victory. You must remember, Hoover had NEVER before held political office; that is, an office he had to win by facing voters. This proved one of his undoings as president, as he hadn't learned the give and take of politics by coming up through the system. He was not a strong political party man, and this too proved to be a problem for him as president, as he encountered one problem after the other with his own Republican members of Congress.  Further, Hoover had largely been praised by the Press in his life, but as president, when the Press criticized him, his thin skinned nature didn't play well.

While intensely shy, he did have a substantial ego with the need to achieve. When the economy began its implosion Hoover took action almost immediately, but it was not the right action, mainly because he and others misjudged the potential severity of the downturn (again, remember, economists today often can't get it right, and that's with all sorts of computers and info gathering, and such stats were much more limited in 1929). It seems Hoover thought the downturn would be much like the downturn early in Harding's term, and he met with business and labor leaders within weeks of the "crash" to get commitments from businessmen that they would maintain production and wages to keep purchasing power up to ride out the downturn, but this was all "voluntary." He asked that labor withdraw any demands for wage increases and to agree to not go out on strike. In an economy on the cusp of expansion, Hoover's plan likely would have worked, but in an economy already with building inventories, along with farming and banking problems, it was the wrong medicine, and businesses, in spite of any voluntary promises, began to layoff workers, close plants and cut production. If you can't sell your inventory of products, you don't want to produce more to add to that inventory build up. Down went the economy.

He had troubles with Congress, often with his own party members, especially progressives who wanted the government to get involved in electric power production (back then, there were many parts of the country without electricity). This is where Hoover's actual philosophy began to come into play. He was progressive, but only so far, and by his own terms. He felt private business should provide electric power and that government should not compete in any way with private power companies. Some strong progressive members of his party actually began to hate him, made worse by his initial opposition to provide direct aid to unemployed and poor Americans; a job he saw as belonging to private charities and the states (which was traditionally true). His lack of political and press savvy had him announce that no one was actually starving, a pronouncement which only invited the press and opponents to produce individuals and families in dire need, as the charities and states became overwhelmed by the mounting unemployment. He finally signed legislation for aid (mid 1932), but by then his opposition to such was framed in the public mind, gleefully reinforced by his political opponents, and he received no credit for it. (Just to be clear, he had first vetoed similar legislation a bit earlier.)

He tried other things, most notably the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (better known by its initials "RFC"), which was used to make direct loans to banks, states and businesses, thus taking Uncle Sam into the economy, but generally Hoover was reluctant to use federal power to try to halt the sliding economy. He did make appeals to Americans to contribute to charities, and interestingly, in 1932 (I believe it was), with unemployment around 20%, and with millions more cut to part time work, giving to charity set a record, but Hoover's idealism and charitable giving was not enough to offset the terrible despair and growing poverty. If I remember right, Hoover also gave away much of his fortune to aid others during that time, but he kept the info away from the public (I told you he wasn't a politician), his Quaker beliefs being that you're supposed to help your fellow humans because they're you're fellow humans, not to get credit for it. Further, he did not accept his presidential salary.

As someone or others noted above (again, there were previous other comments), many of his ideas were later taken by FDR, tweaked or expanded, and claimed as part of the overall New Deal. Hoover had even toyed with a type of "social security" program (some of the details of which escape me at the moment), but again, he was always hesitant to use government power. You have to remember, in those times Americans had been brought up to take care of themselves, and any charity from others was only intended to be temporary, and certainly not provided by government. This all went back to colonial times and then the founding of the country, as people came here from elsewhere and struggled to survive, often moving westward in wagons to make a life for themselves, essentially without help from government. While some of these folks touted their self reliance, those who hadn't survived weren't around to tell us the other side of the story or to make a case for how government could have helped, if at all. Small farms were in the millions in those times, but the agricultural crisis of the 1920s had driven many workers off of farms and into cities, especially industrial cities for work. When plants closed and workers lost their jobs, attitudes toward government help and intervention into the economy began to change.
 
 Hoover was not a bad man, and he struggled with the worst economic downturn in the nation's history, although perhaps too mindful of setting precedents, a feature that didn't bother his successor, FDR, in the least. Part of his mindfulness of precedents was the question of how much federal power should be used or increased, a question that's always been a part of this country. It is also important to remember, he was much more activist than the public understood back then, but part of that was because his programs were too limited or didn't work, and that's what matters. As noted above, he was certainly despised and outright hated by some Americans, but he still chose to serve his country later under Harry Truman and then Dwight Eisenhower. My fascination with Hoover began when I was still pretty young, because when I was growing up in the 1950s/1960s, Hoover's very name could still draw polarized comments, but with a definite edge to the negative side. The Great Depression was so traumatizing to many people that their lives were there ever after affected. When I was in high school economics, the teacher had everyone pitch in a quarter or some such amount to buy one share of stock, which the class would then follow in the stock reports for the term. My mother had such awful recollections of the "crash," that she thought if we put a quarter in, we might lose everything over this one share of stock. While obviously she didn't understand the market, that's how strong such things affected people from the Depression generation. 

Hoover was criticized by conservatives for raising taxes and intervening in the economy (if I remember right, the term "socialist" was tossed around about him, even by some Democrats), and criticized by progressives for not doing anything or not doing enough. The thing was, after trying certain programs to halt the economic slide, Hoover sort of returned to the truly traditional conservative plan of attack on an economic downturn; balance the budget and wait. The federal budget was badly out of balance and that's why he raised taxes across the board in 1932, but much more so on the wealthy and on corporations. He also had the estate tax raised significantly (hm, I wonder if Hoover was ever called "a traitor to his class?"). While Hoover's attempts to rein in the wealthy and corporations was admirable, an across the board tax increase at that time was unwise, although the estate tax increase likely didn't hurt the economy at all. Hoover's philosophy was that huge wealth should not be able to be passed on virtually intact, a sentiment with which I totally agree. So all in all Hoover was progressive, but only so far, and he was conservative, but only so far. He had been a businessman and he had always maintained ties to business, including big business, but during his humanitarian times early in World War One and then again after the war, this was always below the surface, and in fact, he did get business people to help in good causes, but these ties were never really given much scrutiny by progressives. As Secretary of Commerce in the Harding and Coolidge administrations, Hoover naturally had much contact and connection to business, as that went with the job, but again, progressives didn't make the connection, for one reason, because Hoover criticized the stock market speculation of the late 1920s, a position very much disliked by Wall Street, but loved by progressives. When Hoover was under fire for the continuing economic slump, progressives then began to tie Hoover to big business, as he did seek help for business, but shunned direct federal aid to unemployed workers, fearing they would become dependent. He seemingly had no such qualms about business people. Not only that, but the logic just failed the test, as what he was saying was that accepting federal aid would make a person dependent and dispirited, but accepting such aid from a state or local government, or from the Red Cross, would have no such affect upon people. His earlier humanitarian efforts in Europe after World War One included feeding people in war torn Russia, which had undergone revolution and civil war. Hoover's refusal to give direct aid for Americans in need during the Great Depression brought many to recall that he helped "Bolsheviks," but that he wouldn't do the same for his own people. 
     
Unlike his successor, Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of his from the time they served together in Woodrow Wilson's administration, Hoover was not jovial and "public friendly," but rather very shy, reserved and strait-laced. Whether he was temperamentally suited to the presidency has been debated over the years, but his disposition couldn't have been worse than his predecessor Calvin Coolidge, who was often a pickle puss if there ever was one.       

WORD HISTORY:
Seldom-The ultimate origins of this word are uncertain and it "seems" to only be in the Germanic languages, and Old Germanic had "seldan," which meant "strange, rare, out of the ordinary." This gave Old English "seldan," which also meant "rare," which produced "seldum," which then became "seldom." The other Germanic languages have: German "selten," some Low German dialects have "selde" (others now just use a form of "rare"), Dutch "zelden, West Frisian "seldsum," Norwegian "sjeldan/sjelden," Danish "sjaelden," Swedish "sällan," and Icelandic "sjaldan."

Nowhere In Africa (Nirgendwo in Afrika)

"Nowhere in Africa" (German: "Nirgendwo in Afrika") is an absolutely wonderful film. It was released in late 2001 in Europe and in late 2002 in the United States. It won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. It is in German, but with very good subtitles, so please don't let that stop you from missing this great picture. The main characters are a German-Jewish family (the Redlichs) of husband ("Walter," played by Merab Ninidze), wife ("Jettel," pronounced as if "Yettel," as German "J" is pronounced like English "Y," played by Juliane Köhler) and little girl ("Regina," pronounced like "re-geenah," played by Lea Kurka as a young child and by Karoline Eckertz as a teenager), and their Kenyan cook ("Owuor," played by Sidede Onyulo), who really becomes a part of their family. The movie is based on a book by the same name written by Stefanie Zweig, the real life name of the little girl, with many of her real life experiences incorporated into the book. The DVD, available in the U.S., has an interview segment with Stefanie Zweig, who is now about 80 years old (UPDATE: Stefanie Zweig passed away in the spring of 2014 in Frankfurt, Germany, age 81). There is much to this movie, but here are a few things:

What would you do if your homeland were turned into hell? That's the first question of the movie. Germany, the homeland of the Redlich family, has been taken over by the Nazis, who are turning it into a living hell for German Jews and others.* Walter Redlich leaves Germany in 1937 to take a low income job managing a farm in Kenya, an East African nation, then under British rule. He doesn't want to leave his homeland, and he had been an attorney, but survival demands it. He later sends for his wife and young daughter, but he can never convince his father, his sister and his in-laws to leave too, as they believe the Nazi terror will all soon pass. Walter is living on the farm with a tall, thin Kenyan named "Owuor," who is an employee of the English owner. Walter and Owuor become close friends and Owuor begins to teach Walter the local language, Swahili, as Owuor speaks no German. When Regina meets Owuor he picks her up and hugs her and she feels his hair, which is different from her own. This scene is the scene that sticks with me about the picture and it comes into play again later. Jettel is then shown sitting and admiring the scenery when a young Kenyan boy runs up behind her and feels her hair to the delight of his friends. While Regina and Owuor become almost inseparable and he teaches her the language and customs of the local people, which she wholeheartedly welcomes, Jettel misses Germany, her family and familiar surroundings and wants to return "home." She often snaps at Owuor when he tries to help her understand the local customs and she once tells him to learn German if he wants to talk to her (remember, she's in HIS country). She and Walter begin to quarrel, but Walter has been given a radio by another German Jewish farmer who left Germany right when the Nazis took power in 1933, and he has heard the news on a Swiss German station of the infamous "Kristallnacht," a night of terror for Germany's Jews, as Nazi thugs burned and looted synagogues and Jewish shops, beat and arrested Jews, with some Jews being killed. In one argument between Walter and Jettel, he tells her that her treatment of Owuor is awful and comparable to some people back in Germany to whom she would not want to be compared. All of this begins to sink in with Jettel and she finally begins to adopt to her new home.

When the war begins, the British send troops to arrest the male German/German Jewish residents, as they are "enemy aliens;" sort of a supreme irony, as the Nazis had revoked the citizenship of its Jews. They finally release Walter, but he's lost his job, as the British farm owner says he can't have an enemy alien running the farm. Walter and Jettel get another farm job and Owuor tracks them down to join them. The couple send Regina to a British run "white" school. The first day at an assembly, the headmaster tells all Jews to move to the side of the room so that the rest of the students can say a Christian prayer. Later, as Regina does very well in her classes, the headmaster calls her into his office, where, upon her entering he says, "So you're the little Jewish girl." He then wants to know why she is learning so well, to which Regina responds that her father has little money and can't afford for her to fail, so she studies hard. The headmaster then wants to know if it is some Jewish custom to always want to talk about money. So, even in Kenya, far from the Nazis, and among some  "supposed" Christians, anti-Jewish sentiment and bigotry is present.

Both Walter and Jettel receive letters from "home," which stirs their anxiety about the safety of their families back in Germany. Jettel's mother later tells her that she's being "sent to Poland," and Walter tells Jettel it is a virtual death sentence. This sets off a fit of denial by Jettel, but Walter tells her that at least she's lucky in a way, and that he suffers every day, because he doesn't know what has happened to his father and sister. (He finds out later, but I'll let you see the movie for the answer.) Regina becomes a young teenager and asks her mother why people hate Jews so much. Jettel, now fully acclimated to Kenya, tells her that some people can't accept differences in others, but that Africa has taught her that differences are good and that it would be silly if we were all the same.

Walter joins the British Army to find some sort of purpose in his life at that time; a way of striking back at Hitler and the Nazis. When the war ends, Walter is offered a judgeship in Germany, and he and the family must now decide if they want to leave "home" again, for their former "home," filled with so many memories, including the memory of hatred by the Nazis. I'll end it there, so as not to spoil things, but I hope you'll watch this superb film which will leave you feeling good. If you know an "Archie Bunker," have them watch this film. We can't change the world all at once, but we can change it one person at a time.

* The film uses Regina as a sometimes narrator and she tells early on that her father had been an attorney, but that the Nazis then forbid Jews to hold positions in various professions, thus depriving Jews of their means of earning a living. 

Photo is of the Columbia Tristar Special Edition (2 disc) DVD   

WORD HISTORY:
Churl (Churlish)-This word, closely related to the names "Carl/Karl/Charles," is no longer a common word, at least in America, although its adjective form "churlish" is still used. The ancient origin of "churl" is uncertain, but Old Germanic had "karlaz/karilaz," which meant " grown man, mature man." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "ceorl," which had numerous meanings tied to "man/male," like "male peasant, common man, layman, husband." This then became "cherl," before the modern version. The adjective "churlish" in Old English was "cierlisc," and simply meant "having to do with churls." The idea of "peasant or rustic behavior" as opposed to "educated, refined behavior" led to its meaning "rude, surly behavior or disposition," the meaning which still exists today. The other Germanic relatives of "churl" are: German "Kerl," which means "guy, fellow;" Low German Saxon "Keerl" (also guy, fellow); Dutch "kerel" (man, fellow); West Frisian "tsjirl" (guy, fellow); Icelandic and Swedish "karl" (husband, man); Danish "karl" (male farm worker, guy); and Norwegian "kar" (man, guy, fellow).