As Emeril Says, "Who Makes Up These Rules?"

life and government aren't perfect, what sometimes "seems" reasonable, may not work or may be counterproductive; sometimes you've got to swallow hard and take a chance on something that seems to go against ingrained beliefs; the top people set the rules, which can then be broken by ... the top people; Hoover top down, Roosevelt, essentially bottom/middle up, where the top will reap many of the rewards anyway; "what kind of a signal does it send if we give people money?" Well, what kind of signal does it send when bankers and others in the mortgage industry bring the economy to its knees and then get bailed out by government, with few strings attached? ideological rigidity, almost by definition by conservatism, as "progressivism" means change; if you want a total change in the American economic system, you will not agree with me, but Bush/Obama did the right thing about the banks/auto companies bailouts; remember, Hoover changed things, but he didn't go far enough, FDR changed things more and was maligned by many at the top, but he saved their system, the system which has gave them such great lives; otherwise, what would have happened? History full of critical periods where change or complacency were obvious/Nicholas II, changed some, but neither enough nor fast enough/and he and Alexandra were too tied to the past and autocracy, so they forfeited not only their ruling position, but also their lives and the lives of their children and other family members  Much instability in the world today, as protests have become commonplace, where will we be? Bankers should have been held accountable, but weren't. In 2009/10, Ben Bernanke talked about dropping cash out of aircraft to thwart deflation; may not seem fair, but that's what might have actually been needed; notice, he did NOT say he was going to give bundles of cash to Warren Buffett, Donald Trump, LeBron James, the Koch brothers, Tim Tebow, Alex Rodriguez, the Walton family, or Mitt Romney, as although Bernanke is a Republican, he doesn't seem to be intimidated by the right wing and their absolute nonsense about giving money to the wealthy. THEY HAVE ENOUGH! so don't be doctrinaire, remember, the wealthiest of the wealthy have geared "the laws" to themselves and for their own benefit, not for YOU to benefit

WORD HISTORY:
Toe- While you may think this a bit far fetched, this word is actually related to "teach/teacher," the original underlying meanings of which were "show/pointer/someone who shows, points out," a now deceased relative of which was Old English "teon," which meant "to accuse;" that is, "point to someone as liable," which eventually was replaced by the borrowed word "accuse."  Old English ta (long "a," plural tan), contraction of *tahe (Mercian tahæ), from Proto-Germanic *taikhwo (cf. Old Norse ta, Old Frisian tane, Middle Dutch te, Dutch teen, Old High German zecha, German Zehe "toe"), originally meant "finger, pointer," from the notion "to show." verb from 1800s from noun. Middle English to, from Old English tā, (Mercian) tāhe, from Proto-Germanic *taihwǭ (compare Dutch teen, German Zehe, Swedish tå), from Proto-Germanic *tīhwaną (“to show, announce”) (compare Old English teōn (“to accuse”), German zeihen (“id.”)), from Proto-Indo-European *deyḱ- (“to show”)

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."

The Great Depression, Part Twelve

Between 1929 and 1933, the economy suffered some staggering blows. Business investment plummeted by more than 95% from the 1929 level, international trade declined by about 50%, Gross National Product (GNP), used to measure the sum of all goods and services produced by the economy, dropped by nearly 30%, construction spending fell by 78%, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) showed an overall drop in prices by 18%, and the unemployment rate hit 24.9%; that is, 15 million Americans were unemployed, and millions more had only part time work. Even with these stark statistics, in 1932, charitable giving by Americans hit a record amount.

Franklin D. Roosevelt brought a new demeanor to the White House. Unlike the moody, more intellectual Hoover, Roosevelt was smiling, confident and optimistic. Highly respected Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, after meeting the new president, issued a statement that has, more or less, labeled Roosevelt ever since, “A second class intellect, but a first class temperament.” Seemingly aware of his intellectual limitations, he brought into his administration highly competent advisers who devised a wide variety of plans to combat the Depression. Roosevelt reviewed their plans and then acted to “sell” the ideas to Congress and to the public. He wasn’t a saint, and he could be downright petty and vindictive; a trait that got him into some trouble with the electorate during his second term*, but the good will he had established with the American people trumped his personal faults. He had a knack for politics, a natural feel for what people wanted and what they would support. While Hoover had great difficulty conveying his personal concern for people, Roosevelt excelled at “connecting to people;” and during the Depression, this kind of “national hand holding” was important. Roosevelt had suffered from polio during the 1920s, and he was left essentially unable to walk or even to stand for long periods. His affliction seems to have given him a deep compassion for others, and he carried that compassion into the White House. For a nation suffering with a crippling affliction of its own, that compassion was much needed.**

Roosevelt took action immediately. He called Congress into session and presented a basic plan of action to try to turn the tide against the Depression. The banks were closed, in a bank holiday (a tactic actually devised by many states, not the Federal government), and Americans were assured that the banks that reopened would be safe, that they would have Federal inspections, new regulations, and that deposits would be insured by Uncle Sam, through the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The stock market would have new regulation, too, with margin (credit) requirements being upped to 90%. (Remember in an earlier part of this series, I said that previously, if you bought $1000 worth of stock on margin, you only needed to put down $100. With the new regulations, you would have to put up $900, and thus you held a large equity in the stock, making “margin calls” a rarity.) Many mortgages were helped by the advent of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) in 1934, which gave Federal insurance to many homeowners. New public works projects, through the Public Works Administration (PWA), put the unemployed to work building schools, highways, and dams. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) cleaned up riverbanks and did reforestation. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) built dams to control flooding and to provide electric power to a large area of the southeastern part of the country where electric service had not yet been made available; thus opening new markets for appliances (you can’t very well sell electric appliances to places that don’t have electricity). Workers were given rights and protections, including minimum wage, regulated work hours, overtime pay, easier union organizing, and better Federal unemployment insurance. Not all programs proved to be politically popular, and the plan that paid farmers NOT to grow as many crops received harsh criticism at a time when many people lacked adequate food. This situation proved to be a tough one, as farmers had often been producing so much, that they were actually hurting themselves, and frequently they had to sell produce at a loss or at the break even point, at best. The Roosevelt administration opted to pay farmers not to grow as much, so as to bring prices for farm produce to the point where farmers would make a profit.

All of these programs and many more that I haven’t touched upon were enacted during Roosevelt’s first two terms. Many business interests and purist capitalists huffed and puffed and stomped about many of the programs designed to help average Americans, and in spite of the hand wringing by these folks, the country survived and Americans didn’t all go around wearing little hammer and sickle insignias, and a red flag was not run up over the White House. FDR helped save their basic system for them.

Roosevelt was not really all that far removed from Hoover’s beliefs, and he feared high deficits on a Keynesian scale. John Maynard Keynes was an economist who pushed the idea of countries spending their way out of depressions, even if they incurred huge budget deficits. Also like Hoover, Roosevelt feared the “dole” mentality; that is, that some unemployed people would develop a lifestyle of taking money from the government and then not wanting to return to work when work was available. In those times, it was called “being on the dole,” an expression seldom heard in our modern times. Unemployment remained very high throughout the 1930s, in the double digits, but life was made easier for the unemployed and low income folks by the new government programs. The basic plan for old age income security was taken from the Hoover administration’s never completed program. The plan was modified and expanded and enacted as Social Security. This was one of those programs that was never properly funded, and it was instituted as a pay as you go system, but it helped many older Americans with their incomes and their dignity in retirement and it continues as a highly popular program to this day.

Now all of this being said, Roosevelt’s program, termed the “New Deal, did NOT end the Depression, as even in 1939, ten years after the start of the Depression, the unemployment rate was more than 14%. The tremendous expenditures made to fight World War Two provided the final push that conquered not only Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo, but also the Great Depression.

* Roosevelt got into some trouble with Americans when he began to try to “purge” members of his own Democratic Party from Congress who disagreed with some of his programs. Further, he tried a move to circumvent the existing Supreme Court by proposing an expansion of the number of justices, a plan that came to be dubbed by the Press and the public, “a court packing scheme.” These unpopular moves and a downturn in what had been a gradually improving economy led to big Republican gains in both houses of Congress in the midterm elections of 1938, but the GOP had been so decimated, that even with these gains, Democrats maintained control of both houses of Congress by hefty margins.

** I recall reading and hearing about when FDR's funeral train or funeral procession (I can't recall the exact details) was passing by mourners, a man was asked if he had known the President, and he said, "No, but he knew me." That one statement tells how FDR related to millions of Americans.  

WORD HISTORY:
Dole-This word, closely related to "deal," goes back to Indo European "dail/dhail," which meant "to divide, to part." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "dailiz," with the same general meaning. This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "dal," with the notion of "divide" giving the meaning "portion or share (of something)." This then became "dol," and with the more specific meaning "something given as charity." By the 20th Century, the term came to be used in England for "government support given to citizens," and thus developed the expression, "on the dole," to mean "someone receiving government aid." "Deal," from the same source, retained the more general meaning "divide, apportion;" thus later used also for cards. The verb form "dole" developed in the 1400s from the noun, and is most common today in the expression "dole out." Common in the other Germanic languages, but more so with the meaning "part, portion, allotment;" thus making these versions more directly related in meaning to "deal." English is the only Germanic language, to my knowledge, to use a variation to mean "government aid." German has "Teil," Low German has "Deel," Dutch has "deel," West Frisian has "diel," Danish, Swedish and Norwegian all have "del." Again, all of these forms generally meaning "part, portion." Icelandic has "deila," but it has come to mean "quarrel;" that is, "a division between people."

The Government & The Stimulus Money

Just a few comments about the stimulus money that was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.

First, the package passed by Congress spreads the stimulus money, mainly for infrastructure building/repair, over a two year period. Why? Well we all want some kind of accountability for the money, and you can't just start handing out billions of bucks without some strings attached. The package has been criticized for not being "front loaded;" that is, with most of the infrastructure spending being dished out in a matter of months. Simultaneously, members of both political parties want controls on the money, so that waste is kept low. Remember, Congress, like it or not, represents us, and we are subject to such split personalities, too. I'm not sure they (Congress and the Obama Administration) or WE, in the public, can have things both ways: fast spending to pump up the economy and jobs, but also a close accounting of how the money is being spent.

Second, I tune into CNBC, a cable business channel, at various times to listen to the business issues of the day, so to speak (I DON'T stay glued to the television, however, during their discussions), and just in the last day or two I heard something to the effect how China has done such a better job of "front loading" their stimulus money, as compared to our own program. Hmm, this is a bit puzzling to me, as so many business and wealthy people seem to hate government. The key word is "seem." One thing, in my opinion, that wealthy people do very well is....ADAPT!!! They will do, say, or be whatever they need to do, say or be in order to come out ahead of the game. We've heard much contempt for government since about the 1960s, with the anti-government rhetoric being especially harsh in the past thirty years. Businesses and the wealthy told us how government "should get out of the way and let free enterprise flourish." After getting much of their wish, free enterprise not only came to a screeching halt, but went into a nosedive, costing millions of Americans their jobs, homes, medical care. Many have had their lives ruined for whatever number of years they still have to live. The anti-government talk of some business people ceased, and they preferred to offer an open palm to Uncle Sam, with the hope that their now favorite long lost uncle might lay some cash on them (and he did, in some cases!).

So now, China, a country so hated by many of these same folks (or the likes) over the last 60 years, has a government that works better than ours? Is that the message?* I never heard the question asked, "To avoid wasteful spending, are they watching how the money is being spent?"


* For those unaware, China has moved in a significant way toward a free economy, but the overall country is still under the control of the Chinese Communist Party, and that includes the stimulus money they have put forward.

Word History:
Trough-While the spelling and modern pronunciation don't match (one of the major headaches for people trying to learn English is our non standard spelling, or is it our non standard pronunciation? Whatever the hell it is!!!), in times past, the "gh" sound WAS pronounced, and only later did the "f" sound take over. It seems that most linguists agree that it goes back to Indo European "drukos," which was formed by the root word "dru," which meant "tree, wood." The Germanic branch of Indo European took this as "trugoz," for "a holder, container or vessel made from wood." Old English continued this line with "trog," and close English relatives modern German and Dutch still have "Trog." The hollowed out shape of a "trough" began the notion of a weather trough, or an economic dip.

To "Air" Is Human

Okay, you caught me! I know it should be "To Aire Is Human." Hmm, why does that still look wrong? Anyway...


We have people who bash government inefficiency; we have people who bash private sector inefficiency. The idea that any human developed entity will always, or darn near always, run smoothly is just not in the cards. Certainly, politics can openly come into play in government agencies and programs, but politics gets played in the private sector, too, and in our every day lives; we just don't always call it "politics," or maybe at times, we don't recognize it to be politics.


Regular readers know that I have supported certain government programs, and in fact, I wish there were a couple more available to support, like health care for all Americans. While I support these programs, I've NEVER claimed that they are fault free. In fact, I openly say that we need to deal with the flaws and abuses in these programs. Sometimes, supporters of government or supporters of the private sector can't bring themselves to admit that there are indeed flaws in the systems dear to their hearts. I certainly don't always buy into how badly run government programs are, especially when I see how well the private sector has managed mortgages, credit, and the financial system in general. They've run these things so well, that the stock in many of the companies involved in these concerns have dropped by at least 50% in just the last month or so. The point is, human beings are in charge of private sector endeavors, and human beings are in charge of public sector endeavors, and thus we come right back to the title: "To Air," or is it "To Aire?" Oh, you know what I mean!