dagblog - Comments for "President Hoover Is Back"

There was a Wright house near

jollyroger — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:32:24 +0000

There was a Wright house near Palm Springs that was on the market for pocket change and was almost torn down! I think someone stepped up at the last minute, but damn!

The Shining Lowbrow ...

Donal — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:07:49 +0000

In reply to Donal is an architect...he

The Shining Lowbrow ...

Donal is an architect...he

jollyroger — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:05:44 +0000

In reply to I think the poured concrete

Donal is an architect...he would be getting paid to know about this issue only no one is building stuff that requires thought in advance. (they're turning Taliesen into a McDonald's...)

Sources on this are US Census

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:15:01 +0000

In reply to What is really starting to

Sources on this are US Census Bureau, Eric Rauchway, The Great Depression and the New Deal, 2008, and Nancy E. Rose, Put to Work: The WPA and Public Employment in the Great Depression, 2009 (cited as Rose below). The two books are generally supportive but far from uncritical of New Deal public employment programs--there are many important lessons to be learned from a close study of those efforts.

Number of unemployed, percent unemployed, total US pop as of July 1 of identified year

(sources Census Bureau and Rose, p. 17)

1932 12,060,000 24.1

1933 12, 830,000 25.2 125,578,763

1934 11,340,000 22.0 126,373,773

1935 10,610,000 20.3 127,250,232

1936 9,030,000 17.1

1937 7,700,000 14.3

1938 10,390,000 19.1

Size of labor force during GD was about 50 million; in 2009 about 155 million.

Civil Works Administration (CWA), meant to get people through the 1933-34 winter, hired 4.3 million by Jan 1934. 7 million others applied but were not accepted.

Civilian Conservation Corps 300,000-500,000/month, total 2.5 million over 10 years (Rose, p. 21)

Number in Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) programs peaked in Dec. 1934 at a bit under 2.5 million (graph in Rose, p. 53)

Works Progress Administration (WPA) began Sept. 1935

over 3 million in early 1936, then cut back, then uptick on account of

sharp recession 9/37-5/38 to high of 3.3 million Nov 1938 (Rose, p. 78)

During the Great Dep, when labor force was about 50 million, 1.4-4.4 million people per month were put to work through 3 programs--FERA, CWA and WPA. (Rose, p. 91);

4.4 million at height of CWA between CWA, WPA and FERA (Rose, p. 10).

There simply isn't a market to do some of the green infrastucture work that needs doing unless one is created by making government money available for such purposes. No chance of getting any, let alone a decent cap-and-trade bill done these next two years, which <a href="http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=green_job_search">some</a> see as essential to stimulating private sector demand for alternative energy investments.

As to what the reaction in the liberal blogosphere would be in the highly unlikely event that this Administration and Congress were to pass public employment legislation on a scale comparable to what was done during the Great Depression, I have no idea. Others can obsess and construct rhetorical straw men to their hearts' content, speculate on that, raise alarms about how this would need to lead to a World War to solve the unemployment problem, bash the liberal blogosphere in advance based on a belief they know what the reaction would be, whatever.

I can say I would be ecstatic if that were done and that I think it would do a tremendous amount to raise morale in this country and communicate clearly to the public that when this President says he is intent on the US "winning the future", he will commit the full weight and prestige of his office to the level of investment, including the level of public investment and whatever other measures are necessary to do that. And--the people part of it--convey with his actions that in meeting these great challenges we don't have people to waste when there is so much work that needs doing.

Excellent! Thanks for the

emerson — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:12:49 +0000

In reply to "There's some guy standing on

Excellent! Thanks for the laugh!

You owe me a new monitor.

Verified Atheist — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:06:29 +0000

In reply to "There's some guy standing on

You owe me a new monitor. Mine has Dr. Pepper sprayed all over it now, thanks to you.

"There's some guy standing on

erica20 — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:00:41 +0000

In reply to Don't be an ass. If he got it

"There's some guy standing on a moose in front of the White House fence! OMG, he's over, and he's running across the lawn screaming something about the kingdom of our god and 7%! Deploy Security Measures! Deploy Security Measures!"

A key point here is that in a

erica20 — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:36:58 +0000

In reply to Alot of those smart people

A key point here is that in a fair system, being wrong would have genuine, serious consequences for the people who are wrong, and the loss that they take would be in line with the systemic risk they take when they make their bets.

But our system is not fair, what with the concepts of the level playing field and the "reset button" of wealth redistribution being so out of fashion these days. (I mean, it's never been totally fair, but the numbers indicate that at least in the USA, the financial system is becoming objectively less fair.)

So we're stuck with something resembling a giant, friendly poker game for the wealthy, where the chips keep getting passed around depending on who wins any given hand, but in which very few of the chips fall down through the grates to the eager masses below. (Now I swear they're using supersize chips and smaller grates.) Just as in any friendly poker game, if somebody blows a hand or two or five, the other players will tease him or her, but nobody's going to toss them from the game unless they do something unthinkable like pee on the table. More than once.

This leaves the ordinary people out of the game, forced to survive by taking ever-riskier side bets on the calls that the big players make, but without sharing in the benefits that the big players accrue. And did I mention that the ordinary people have to give money to the big players for the opportunity to play at all?

I know it's necessary for Democrats to be politically strategic, but I agree with kgb's point that every time we "double down," go "best three out of five" or "best seven out of ten" with the elites, we weaken our overall position. We absolutely have to get a handle on this--we can't take a "week in Vegas" approach, where we win some, lose more, and go home feeling like hey, it was fun to play.

It isn't a matter of

oleeb — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:26:41 +0000

In reply to Oleeb, look at this graph. As

It isn't a matter of proportion or the very loose association with timing. It was clear on the day he proposed the inadequate "stimulus" that it wasn't enough. Hoover's "stimulus" program which was up to that time the largest public works plan in the history of the country was inadequate just as Obama's was. In fact, much of Obama's spending was simply continued funding for existing programs or tax cuts so it really wasn't providing the stimulus it was billed as to begin with.

Loose analogies between what Obama's very inadequate program of additional spending and FDR's experience are not really valid. They are coincidental and that's it.

It is far more accurate to compare Obama's spending with that of Hoover and if you really looked at it without filtering it through the mainstream consensus viewpoint I think you'd see that is true. Furthermore, as I pointed out above FDR didn't have the advantage of historical experience as Obama does yet Obama consciously chose to undermine his spending program with tax cuts and by not even proposing an adequate amount of spending and his pullback is fueled primarily be his own self interested desire to lift his popularity for re-election and not to breathe life back into our moribund economy.

Time and again Obama refers to Hoover's biggest fan in recent times; Ronald Reagan as a model. He never even mentions President Roosevelt, never refers to the New Deal. In fact, Obama has on numerous occassions made statements repudiating the fundamental premises of the New Deal philosophy when he denies that the government cannot and should not get into the business of employing people. That's basic Hooverism in the midst of economic catastrophe. Your assumption that things are fundamantally improving is belied by the continuing collapse of our economic base. Unemployment is off the charts and we now have in excess of 20 million out of work many of whom aren't even attempting to find a job anymore because it is so hopeless. We have had around 6 million foreclosures since Obama was elected--not his fault that the mortgage crisis occured but he has done absolutely nothing to slow it. Each foreclosure represents an economic cataclysm for an American family. The situation is disasterous and the "prosperity is just around the corner" boosterism isn't going to get the job done.

Your confidence that things are actually getting better (in a way meaningful to anyone other than those in the predator class) and that Obama's failure to lead in the midst of crisis mirrors FDR is simply misplaced in the first instance and a misread of what is going on today in Washington in the second. Sadly, though I do wish you were right, you will find out later that you're not, but until then you will continue to fool yourself into thinking that the more comfortable and comforting scenario being put out by the predator class and their tribunes is accurate.

I'll be happy to admit I was wrong if that turns out to be the case, but like with the wars, the disasterous tax cuts, the outrageous and ongoing bailout of the banks and Wall Street you'll see that what I've been pointing out about our new Hoover and the rest of the discredited leadership of the nation is true.

Concrete is poured by one

Donal — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:14:00 +0000

In reply to I think the poured concrete

Concrete is poured by one trade, concrete and clay masonry is laid by another. In some areas concrete prevails for foundations; in others, cmu prevails.