This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Obama(Hoover) is president. They have the lamb to slaughter. — Brooklynian

Obama(Hoover) is president. They have the lamb to slaughter.

In the presidential election of 1928 Hoover easily won the Republican nomination. The nation was prosperous and optimistic, leading to a landslide for Hoover over the Democrat Al Smith. Hoover deeply believed in the Efficiency Movement (a major component of the Progressive Era), arguing that a technical solution existed for every social and economic problem.

That position was challenged by the Great Depression, which began in 1929, the first year of his presidency. Hoover tried to combat the Depression with volunteer efforts and government action, none of which produced economic recovery during his term. The consensus among historians is that Hoover's defeat in the 1932 election was caused primarily by failure to end the downward spiral into deep Depression.

-Wikipedia

Well the dates are off by a year or two and they went left this time. Yet who see's the right turn coming?

Comments

  • Sorry, nice try, but W=Hoover.
  • I don't know WT. I belong to the Society of Recurring Events too, but I think you have over simplified the Great Depression and the current mess to make your point. We got two different animals here. What did you say you do for a living?
  • I would not discount this comparison between Hoover and Obama so quickly. People have a lot of unrealistic expectations for Obama. To paraphrase Andrew Sullivan, a lot of people are going to be disappointed that they merely elected a president.

    We are quite possibly on the edge of a very painful economic depression that even the smartest politicians are powerless to stop. If that happens, of course Obama will pay the penalty by being voted out of office as "ineffective."
  • Hoover, like W inherited prosperity and left the country in shambles. Obama is coming in to try to clean up the mess that his Republican predecessor left him. FDR would be a more apt analogy than Hoover.

    What you say about the challenges he faces remains true, of course. But Obama is better equipped to meet them than anyone we've seen in a long while.
  • modsquad wrote: I don't know WT. I belong to the Society of Recurring Events too, but I think you have over simplified the Great Depression and the current mess to make your point. We got two different animals here. What did you say you do for a living?
    Look I like the fact that Obama show's us anything is possible in America, but I make money off of knowing reality not media hype. The reality is the economy is f*&#ed and none of our leaders are doing what needs to be done, so short America for now until we can't bleed anymore and that is when I will long America or what ever it is at that time.

    Hey what do you think the banks that are getting the bail-out funds are doing? I will tell you growing (eating-up other banks), not lending.
  • Carnivore wrote: Hoover, like W inherited prosperity and left the country in shambles. Obama is coming in to try to clean up the mess that his Republican predecessor left him. FDR would be a more apt analogy than Hoover.

    What you say about the challenges he faces remains true, of course. But Obama is better equipped to meet them than anyone we've seen in a long while.
    No my friend, Willliam Clinton screwed America and Bush made it worse while reaping the rewards. Find out who repealed the "glass steagall act" and what caused the great depression.

    Ron Paul was the only man that made any sense and the media didn't want to give the time of day.
  • Nice try again.

    From Wikipedia:
    18 wrote: Phil Gramm (R-TX)[/size] and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) in 1999. The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[8] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[9]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. [10]

    The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[11]
    The repeal of the Glass-Steagall act undoubtedly contributed in part to our current situation, but don't try to pin it on Clinton.
  • Carnivore wrote: Nice try again.

    From Wikipedia:

    [quote=18]Phil Gramm (R-TX)[/size] and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) in 1999. The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[8] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[9]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. [10]

    The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[11]
    The repeal of the Glass-Steagall act undoubtedly contributed in part to our current situation, but don't try to pin it on Clinton.

    And free trade acts during Clinton's terms, how did they help? It goes back much further. Clinton is a horrible man and that is why he looks the way he looks now, the evil is eating him alive, oh, Bush too.
  • worldwide trader wrote: And free trade acts during Clinton's terms, how did they help? It goes back much further. Clinton is a horrible man and that is why he looks the way he looks now, the evil is eating him alive, oh, Bush too.
    You forgot how he murdered Vince Foster... :roll: :roll: :roll:
  • Carnivore wrote: [quote=worldwide trader]And free trade acts during Clinton's terms, how did they help? It goes back much further. Clinton is a horrible man and that is why he looks the way he looks now, the evil is eating him alive, oh, Bush too.
    You forgot how he murdered Vince Foster... :roll: :roll: :roll:

    daver-brooklynian.com:

    Offhand, some government high profile ones in recent history would probably include Watergate, Iran-Contra, Jack Abramoff, secret CIA torture prisons. In business, I would nominate the S&L debacle, energy price fixing in California, computer memory price fixing. Enron. WorldCom. Um, let's see. A number of them in Vegas, like the rigged Venetian drawing, the fixed slot machines in the 90s and the death surrounding them. Shit, what about the secret bombing of Cambodia?

    Anyway. A few for ya.
  • Subject: Re: Obama(Hoover) is president. They have the lamb to slaugh

    worldwide trader wrote: In the presidential election of 1928 Hoover easily won the Republican nomination. The nation was prosperous and optimistic, leading to a landslide for Hoover over the Democrat Al Smith. Hoover deeply believed in the Efficiency Movement (a major component of the Progressive Era), arguing that a technical solution existed for every social and economic problem.

    That position was challenged by the Great Depression, which began in 1929, the first year of his presidency. Hoover tried to combat the Depression with volunteer efforts and government action, none of which produced economic recovery during his term. The consensus among historians is that Hoover's defeat in the 1932 election was caused primarily by failure to end the downward spiral into deep Depression.

    -Wikipedia

    Well the dates are off by a year or two and they went left this time.
    ...Since the Depression has ALREADY begun, it strikes me that Obama is more analagous to Roosevelt than to Hoover. What is it that makes you compare him to Hoover instead?
  • Subject: Re: Obama(Hoover) is president. They have the lamb to slaugh

    queencallipygos wrote: [quote=worldwide trader]In the presidential election of 1928 Hoover easily won the Republican nomination. The nation was prosperous and optimistic, leading to a landslide for Hoover over the Democrat Al Smith. Hoover deeply believed in the Efficiency Movement (a major component of the Progressive Era), arguing that a technical solution existed for every social and economic problem.

    That position was challenged by the Great Depression, which began in 1929, the first year of his presidency. Hoover tried to combat the Depression with volunteer efforts and government action, none of which produced economic recovery during his term. The consensus among historians is that Hoover's defeat in the 1932 election was caused primarily by failure to end the downward spiral into deep Depression.

    -Wikipedia

    Well the dates are off by a year or two and they went left this time.
    ...Since the Depression has ALREADY begun, it strikes me that Obama is more analagous to Roosevelt than to Hoover. What is it that makes you compare him to Hoover instead?

    It is just the start, Roosevelt picked it up at the end. The game of chess is never played quite the same twice.
  • Subject: Re: Obama(Hoover) is president. They have the lamb to slaugh

    worldwide trader wrote: [quote=queencallipygos]
    ...Since the Depression has ALREADY begun, it strikes me that Obama is more analagous to Roosevelt than to Hoover. What is it that makes you compare him to Hoover instead?
    It is just the start, Roosevelt picked it up at the end. The game of chess is never played quite the same twice.

    Fair, but a more likely difference is in the nature of the economic downturn itself.

    The root causes of the Great Depression were more due to overlarge factory inventories, a stock-market crash, and Germany's inability to pay back war debts, which then led to continuing strain on British gold reserves. But none of these are issues now, as industries have very sensitive controls for trimming production as consumption declines; our current stock-market dip followed bank problems that emerged more than a year ago; and there are no serious international problems with gold reserves, simply because banks no longer peg their lending to them.

    By contrast, though, the 1873 economic crash is more like our lot today. Things actually started in 1870, when the Austro-Hungarian Empire supported new lending institutions that issued mortgages for municipal and residential construction, especially in the capitals of Vienna, Berlin, and Paris. Mortgages were easier to obtain than before, which lead to a building boom; borrowers ravenously assumed more and more credit, using unbuilt or half-built houses as collateral.

    But the economic fundamentals were shaky. Wheat exporters from Russia and Central Europe were now being undersold by U.S. grain exporters, who used grain elevators, conveyer belts, and massive steam ships to export trainloads of wheat to abroad. Britain stopped buying wheat from Europe and turned to America instead in 1871, and then started buying more goods from the United States in 1872 -- essentially, the United States became the European Wal-Mart of the 19th Century. European merchants went bust, and Europe's economy faltered -- particularly in the Austro-Hungarian empire, which was already strained by the building boom.

    Which lead to British banks holding off on credit, unsure of which institutions were most involved in the mortgage crisis. The cost to borrow money from another bank — the interbank lending rate — reached impossibly high rates. This banking crisis hit the United States in the fall of 1873. Railroad companies tumbled first. When the railroad financier Jay Cooke proved unable to pay off his debts, the stock market crashed in September, closing hundreds of banks over the next three years. The panic continued for more than four years in the United States and for nearly six years in Europe.

    Now, the man who was president during all this was Ulysses S. Grant, who was voted out of office largely because he didn't take any action to stop the crisis at any point. In fact, he may have exacerbated it -- in 1869, he issued a bill pledging a monetary value to Confederacy currency, promising to back the currency in gold. Issuing returns on that currency strained the U.S. economy -- much as our economy was strained in this century by Congress removing regulations on the different loan companies. The depression led to Democratic victories in the 1874 off-year elections, as that party took control of the House for the first time since 1856 -- much as discontent with the Republican party lead to Democratic gains in the House and the Senate during the 2006 election. Grant was finally voted out in 1877, while the country was still recovering from the crisis, and succeeded by Rutherford B. Hayes.

    ...So, again, what is it that makes you compare this current crisis to the Depression, and Obama to Hoover?
  • Subject: Re: Obama(Hoover) is president. They have the lamb to slaugh

    queencallipygos wrote: [quote=worldwide trader][quote=queencallipygos]
    ...Since the Depression has ALREADY begun, it strikes me that Obama is more analagous to Roosevelt than to Hoover. What is it that makes you compare him to Hoover instead?
    It is just the start, Roosevelt picked it up at the end. The game of chess is never played quite the same twice.

    Fair, but a more likely difference is in the nature of the economic downturn itself.

    The root causes of the Great Depression were more due to overlarge factory inventories, a stock-market crash, and Germany's inability to pay back war debts, which then led to continuing strain on British gold reserves. But none of these are issues now, as industries have very sensitive controls for trimming production as consumption declines; our current stock-market dip followed bank problems that emerged more than a year ago; and there are no serious international problems with gold reserves, simply because banks no longer peg their lending to them.

    By contrast, though, the 1873 economic crash is more like our lot today. Things actually started in 1870, when the Austro-Hungarian Empire supported new lending institutions that issued mortgages for municipal and residential construction, especially in the capitals of Vienna, Berlin, and Paris. Mortgages were easier to obtain than before, which lead to a building boom; borrowers ravenously assumed more and more credit, using unbuilt or half-built houses as collateral.

    But the economic fundamentals were shaky. Wheat exporters from Russia and Central Europe were now being undersold by U.S. grain exporters, who used grain elevators, conveyer belts, and massive steam ships to export trainloads of wheat to abroad. Britain stopped buying wheat from Europe and turned to America instead in 1871, and then started buying more goods from the United States in 1872 -- essentially, the United States became the European Wal-Mart of the 19th Century. European merchants went bust, and Europe's economy faltered -- particularly in the Austro-Hungarian empire, which was already strained by the building boom.

    Which lead to British banks holding off on credit, unsure of which institutions were most involved in the mortgage crisis. The cost to borrow money from another bank — the interbank lending rate — reached impossibly high rates. This banking crisis hit the United States in the fall of 1873. Railroad companies tumbled first. When the railroad financier Jay Cooke proved unable to pay off his debts, the stock market crashed in September, closing hundreds of banks over the next three years. The panic continued for more than four years in the United States and for nearly six years in Europe.

    Now, the man who was president during all this was Ulysses S. Grant, who was voted out of office largely because he didn't take any action to stop the crisis at any point. In fact, he may have exacerbated it -- in 1869, he issued a bill pledging a monetary value to Confederacy currency, promising to back the currency in gold. Issuing returns on that currency strained the U.S. economy -- much as our economy was strained in this century by Congress removing regulations on the different loan companies. The depression led to Democratic victories in the 1874 off-year elections, as that party took control of the House for the first time since 1856 -- much as discontent with the Republican party lead to Democratic gains in the House and the Senate during the 2006 election. Grant was finally voted out in 1877, while the country was still recovering from the crisis, and succeeded by Rutherford B. Hayes.

    ...So, again, what is it that makes you compare this current crisis to the Depression, and Obama to Hoover?

    Hoover deeply believed in the Efficiency Movement (a major component of the Progressive Era), arguing that a technical solution existed for every social and economic problem.

    Resetting economy expectations and creating a fiscal stimulus plan, would you say that this is an example of Efficiency Movement?

    Wait...wait, it gets better: Obama picks Clinton alum Emanuel chief of WH staff. Oh, hell, he is selling America down the tubes and the man isn't in office yet.
  • dailyheights wrote: I would not discount this comparison between Hoover and Obama so quickly. People have a lot of unrealistic expectations for Obama. To paraphrase Andrew Sullivan, a lot of people are going to be disappointed that they merely elected a president.

    We are quite possibly on the edge of a very painful economic depression that even the smartest politicians are powerless to stop. If that happens, of course Obama will pay the penalty by being voted out of office as "ineffective."
    You said it sir.

    "Obama picks Clinton alum Emanuel chief of WH staff" -AP
  • Subject: Re: Obama(Hoover) is president. They have the lamb to slaugh

    worldwide trader wrote: Hoover deeply believed in the Efficiency Movement (a major component of the Progressive Era), arguing that a technical solution existed for every social and economic problem.

    Resetting economy expectations and creating a fiscal stimulus plan, would you say that this is an example of Efficiency Movement?
    Actually, I'd compare it more to Roosevelt's "New Deal" policies. What else would the Public Works Administration, the CCC, and the readjustments of the banking systems be but "a fiscal stimulus plan"? And, while it did take a while, it did still work, and worked well enough to get FDR re-elected to four terms.
    Wait...wait, it gets better: Obama picks Clinton alum Emanuel chief of WH staff. Oh, hell, he is selling America down the tubes and the man isn't in office yet.
    I thought we were comparing Hoover/Roosevelt and Obama. Why are you bringing the Clinton administration into this?
  • Subject: Re: Obama(Hoover) is president. They have the lamb to slaugh

    queencallipygos wrote: [quote=worldwide trader]Hoover deeply believed in the Efficiency Movement (a major component of the Progressive Era), arguing that a technical solution existed for every social and economic problem.

    Resetting economy expectations and creating a fiscal stimulus plan, would you say that this is an example of Efficiency Movement?
    Actually, I'd compare it more to Roosevelt's "New Deal" policies. What else would the Public Works Administration, the CCC, and the readjustments of the banking systems be but "a fiscal stimulus plan"? And, while it did take a while, it did still work, and worked well enough to get FDR re-elected to four terms.
    Wait...wait, it gets better: Obama picks Clinton alum Emanuel chief of WH staff. Oh, hell, he is selling America down the tubes and the man isn't in office yet.
    I thought we were comparing Hoover/Roosevelt and Obama. Why are you bringing the Clinton administration into this?

    Watch how this thing plays out and you will see why. Thank you for your thoughts, it was a pleasure.
  • Subject: Re: Obama(Hoover) is president. They have the lamb to slaugh

    worldwide trader wrote: [quote=queencallipygos]I thought we were comparing Hoover/Roosevelt and Obama. Why are you bringing the Clinton administration into this?
    Watch how this thing plays out and you will see why.

    ....Maybe you could give me some idea as to what I'm watching for? I've been watching, and I don't see the connection. In fact, to my mind, if you're implying that the recession began with the Clinton administration, then that means that the President first elected during the recession (Bush) was comparable to Hoover, and had to be bailed out by the next up (Obama), so that still doesn't explain your comparison.
    Thank you for your thoughts, it was a pleasure.
    Where are you going?
Sign In or Register to comment.