Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The "hard time" you have with me has nothing to do with the question. How do you respond to the question, and why? Please, stop making every post I make something that it is not. I will always clearly explain my views and respond to questions.
My feeling is that Obama is trying to micro-manage the economy in a manner similar (although the specific issues are different), to Hoover. Hoover thought what he was doing would work, so does Obama. Hoover felt that government actions in the areas he felt were important would trigger economic activity or improve conditions, so does Obama. Hoover was President during poor economic conditions, so is Obama, Hoover made things worse, will Obama? That is the question in my mind, that is the question I seek input from others on. I am open to what others have to say on the issue, primarily because of the psychological impact perceptions have on the economy. I want to understand why the market responds the way it does, for that I need to understand how others see things.
|
Except that Hoover didn't try to micro manage the economy. In fact, the whole "micro managing" of the economy (or at least the accusations that he was micro managing the economy) came during the FDR years.
Hoover's response was a mix of very limited regulation and a concern for deficits, coupled with a belief in the ricardian equivalence you have defended elsewhere.
In other words, there might even be a parallel to Obama, but for precisely the opposite of the reason that you seem to think they are alike. That is why I have a hard time understanding this thread, unless it is some new found attempt to rewrite history and blame Hoover for being too hands on, as opposed to not enough.