Hoovers policies and attitudes in the years 1929-33 Essay

Asses the overtake that vacuum-cleans policies and attitudes in the years 1929-33 merely prolonged the depression. chairman Herbert Hoover came in to power in the States in 1928. He was a man with a strong belief and he believes in individualism and believed passionately in the values of hard playact and enterprise. How eer, he came in power at a time where the States was in an economic crisis, where unemployment was shooting up as well as inflation, America had entered a new era where inequality was increasing more than ever for example New York had one million unemployed whereas Ohio has 50% of the cosmos unemployed, frankincense it was spanking for Hoovers policies to be adequate in hallow to restore prosperity. antecedent 7 sinkly argues that Hoovers attitudes and policies were inadequate and failed again and again. Similarly, first 8 believes that his faith in his own policies has only prolonged the depression even more, thence whatsoever(prenominal) sources beat a c ause consensus between them. On the other make pass source 9 argues that a lot was actually done in night club to get Americans back on their feet, thus Hoovers attitudes and policies were good for America. However, it is clear that Hoover simply did non do bounteous in order to deal with this economic crisis as he was seen to be as a in truth stubborn individual as source 7 argues and he simple could not read between the lines.Source 7 describes Hoover as a very stubborn person who Remained convinced that he was right Hoovers attitudes towards land did not help American farmers at all. The agricultural marting act was established in 1929 which by artificial means purchased farmers surpluses at prices above the market price. Hoover gave the Federal Farm gore $500M, yet Hoover still not think by dint of merely what he was doing. The agricultural market was in a significant set in America during the 1930s and he only encouraged farmers to flummox more as the Federal Reser ve board was purchasing their surpluses. Furthermore, he was accused of throwing away tax payers money which was extremely regressive.Similarly, source 8 believes that Hoover undertook some harmful policies where he in any case resisted congressional attempts to put up more substantial farm relief this can be seen through the fact that instead of putt money into farmers pockets he actually took it away. Farming was seen as the backbone of the American economy and Hoovers unpolished Marketing Act seemed like something that was rushed and neer sentiment through which emphasises how Hoover simply lacked knowledge in many areas of the economy. Furthermore, he never thought about agricultural on an international level and the consequences his actions would overhear, thus his attitudes towards individualism was clearly not applicable to American bon ton at that time as American clearly needed a Keynesian court towards the economy where money would be significantly pumped in to the circulation of the economy.Source 8 also believes that the Hawley-Smoot Tariff was significantly damaging towards Americans which he signed despite the advice of most economists. This emphasises his attitudes towards his policies, he in his own fondness world as source 7 also describes as he simple did not have any fixed approach towards obsession the damaged economy. Hoover did not realise exactly what was needed for the American economy as if he did, he would have realised that putting a 40% duty on agricultural products would not have stimulated the economy. This fantasy world consisted of just his own approach, which was not thought through, he believed just because he had a very hard work ethic meant that everyone else could have one too, however, this was not the case in America as Americans simply had no money in their pockets to start them shoot-key and they needed relief in order to get back on their feet again.Furthermore, his policies had a very short run effect as h e believed by putting tariffs up it would help farmers gain more revenue. However, with agriculture being such a competitive market, it only led to retribution as countries all across Europe could not afford broad(prenominal) prices as they were in an economic crisis too. Furthermore, the Hawley-Smoot tariff resulted in the abandonment of submit trade amongst European nations, thus it was extremely damaging for the agricultural market as they could not sell their surpluses and had to eventually dump their goods in contrary countries, therefore Hoover did pro long the depression.Furthermore, source 8 also argues that Hoovers approach towards unemployment was also not good enough as he blocked direct aid to the unemployed. This is because of his hands off approach attitude that he undertook during the 1930s was not radical enough and could be seen as taking things too modestly as source 8 states. The Emergency Committee for Employment aimed to help agencies provide relief of $500, however, due(p) to his self-reliance attitude he did not allow direct national relief.This clearly shows how Hoover was not thinking ahead and his attitudes were far seat time as he did not realise exactly how severely Americans needed the governments help and it was crucial to intervene in the economy as much as possible. However, Hoovers $500M was not large enough to help the millions of tidy sum in America who were unemployed and did not have the basic necessities in life, growth was literally not possible without the government intervening as GDP was getting lower and lower. However, taking into account that many countries were in a nation debt, it was obviously not possible for Hoover to magically get a large sum of money in order to give relief to firms and other sectors, thus there was actually a limited amount that Hoover could do even though he did have a hands off approach towards America.Source 9 completely contradicts source 8 and 7 as Leuchtenburg believes Hoover Stepped up federal construction and urged state and local governments to accelerate spending thus Hoover did make significant changes that did not pro long the depression. unrivalled of his most significant polices was the reconstruction finance corporation which was authorised to pass on $1.5 billion to states to finance public works. Not only was this a very direct relief but it also had many benefits as it helped redress companies as well as banks. One major aspect of the RFC was the fact that it lent 90% to small and medium banks, which was a turning evidence as rural small banks were hardly ever noticed and no other president intervened the way Hoover did and this contradicts Pattersons view of Hoover having minimal government intervention, thus his lack of intervention whitethorn have been exaggerated by source 7 and 8.The increased big(p) investment as source 9 suggests also helped the economy as investment was a crucial part of GDP and investment would have allowed firm s to innovate in America, thus Hoover had noticed the grim reality of the depression as he was doing what he could have in order to restore the economy. However, the RFC was only available to states that declared bankruptcy and they had to use the money to provide schemes which would earn money so that loans could be repaired and this perfectly fits in with Parrishs view of how the economic crisis required maximum cooperation , which Hoover was not giving at that time as all banks and businesses needed some sort of relief which he was not doing. Furthermore, even if he was cooperated it was a little too late, thus Hoover did pro long the depression.Overall, it is clear the Hoovers approaches were not good enough for American society in the 1930s and he did pro long the depression. One vital error that Hoover made was the fact that he was not service of process the unemployed as much as he should have as in order to stimulate the economy, a wage was needed and with a wage tax could have been paid which could have been used to investment company the public with goods. Therefore, if Hoover had considered getting people into work this would have mechanically had a positive knock on effect. Furthermore, a hands off approach was not needed in times of the depression as Americans did not have money to get back on their feet as many banks were not giving out loans due to the effects that the knock down period had on them, therefore a lot of intervention was needed. Thus, it is clear that Hoover did make big mistakes during the depression as he did not see the reality of it and did not try to tackle the main problems as he had no detailed plan.