PDA

View Full Version : Crisis response: Why do we think "Govt must do something!" is a GOOD idea?



Little-Acorn
06-17-2010, 06:04 PM
Every time something happens in this country, we seem to hear nearly every time, "Government must do something about it!" or "When will government fix this?" or "This happened because government didn't do enough!".

Why, on Earth???

As Sowell points out, usually when the central government "does something" in response to a crisis, things get worse, not better. On the rare occasions when government does nothing, solutions seem to come about more quickly than when government tries to "help".

Only when it's something that regular people or groups CANNOT handle at all (foreign invasion, crime waves, etc.) do we see a time when government SHOULD step in. (Ironically, it's during those times that central government actually does nothing... except to restrict anyone else from doing anything, see "Gulf oil spill" and "border security").

----------------------------------------

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/06/17/a_mind-changing_page?page=full&comments=true

A Mind-Changing Page

by Thomas Sowell
Thursday, June 17, 2010

Sometimes you can read a book that will change your mind on some fundamental issue. Rarely, however, is there just one page that can undermine or destroy a widely-held belief. But there is such a page-- page 77 of the book "Out of Work" by Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway.

The widespread belief is that government intervention is the key to getting the country out of a serious economic downturn. The example often cited is President Franklin D. Roosevelt's intervention, after the stock market crash of 1929 was followed by the Great Depression of the 1930s, with its massive and long-lasting unemployment.

This is more than just a question about history. Right here and right now there is a widespread belief that the unregulated market is what got us into our present economic predicament, and that the government must "do something" to get the economy moving again. FDR's intervention in the 1930s has often been cited by those who think this way.

What is on that one page in "Out of Work" that could change people's minds? Just a simple table, giving unemployment rates for every month during the entire decade of the 1930s.

Those who think that the stock market crash in October 1929 is what caused the huge unemployment rates of the 1930s will have a hard time reconciling that belief with the data in that table.

Although the big stock market crash occurred in October 1929, unemployment never reached double digits in any of the next 12 months after that crash. Unemployment peaked at 9 percent, two months after the stock market crashed-- and then began drifting generally downward over the next six months, falling to 6.3 percent by June 1930.

This was what happened in the market, before the federal government decided to "do something."

What the government decided to do in June 1930-- against the advice of literally a thousand economists, who took out newspaper ads warning against it-- was impose higher tariffs, in order to save American jobs by reducing imported goods.

This was the first massive federal intervention to rescue the economy, under President Herbert Hoover, who took pride in being the first President of the United States to intervene to try to get the economy out of an economic downturn.

Within six months after this government intervention, unemployment shot up into double digits-- and stayed in double digits in every month throughout the entire remainder of the decade of the 1930s, as the Roosevelt administration expanded federal intervention far beyond what Hoover had started.

If more government regulation of business is the magic answer that so many seem to think it is, the whole history of the 1930s would have been different. An economic study in 2004 concluded that New Deal policies prolonged the Great Depression. But the same story can be found on one page in "Out of Work."

While the market produced a peak unemployment rate of 9 percent-- briefly-- after the stock market crash of 1929, unemployment shot up after massive federal interventions in the economy. It rose above 20 percent in 1932 and stayed above 20 percent for 23 consecutive months, beginning in the Hoover administration and continuing during the Roosevelt administration.

As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up." It is all there on that one page.

Those who are convinced that the government has to "do something" when the economy has a problem almost never bother to find out what actually happens when the government intervenes.

The very fact that we still remember the stock market crash of 1929 is remarkable, since there was a similar stock market crash in 1987 that most people have long since forgotten.

What was the difference between these two stock market crashes? The 1929 stock market crash was followed by the most catastrophic depression in American history, with as many as one-fourth of all American workers being unemployed. The 1987 stock market crash was followed by two decades of economic growth with low unemployment.

But that was only one difference. The other big difference was that the Reagan administration did not intervene in the economy after the 1987 stock market crash-- despite many outcries in the media that the government should "do something."

revelarts
06-17-2010, 06:29 PM
I agree with the premise, if not the details.

Less Gov't help would be better in many cases.
as far as disasters go I think the go'vt can play a role but they should NOT be the 1st and final word. In the gulf spill the states wanted to do more but the feds told them not to take steps to protect there estuaries. It's crazy. In Katerinia people had trucks that the gov't wouldn't let in to help. And spent time confiscating peoples guns. And wasting tons of money on death trap mobile homes. the world not perfect and gov't certainly will never be, but in my mind to today as well as the 2 items mentioned in the article that gov't needs to deal with "foreign invasion, crime waves, etc." it needs to deal with mega corporations and the there influence. I'm not sure how that works but i honestly can't see how free markets can reign in cartels and monopolies from destructive and illegal practices. the Feds should have an open investigation into the Gulf deal and open the seas to all comers with efforts to clear the spill. Gov't and BP shouldn't have sole control of the clean up. it's a communal problem now. BP should pay for it but not control it. If a fire catches at your house and spreads to the whole neighborhood are you going think you can tell everyone not to fight the fire that "your working on it."?

SassyLady
06-18-2010, 03:38 AM
Love Sowell!