He has more thoughts here, here, here, here, and here.
All very interesting stuff.
While I agree with Brad's assessments, I have to confess I sympathize with Hoover. He seems like such a good guy. He's kind of like George W. Bush in a lot of ways. I think I'd really enjoy the guy, but it's too bad he was ever president. He wasn't an ideologue, and there's something to be said for his philosophy of associationalism. But since it grew out of the soil of conservative Republicanism it was fairly inflexible, at least in the late 1920s and early 1930s.
I have another short piece (a comment, in response to an article) currently under review at the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics that actually defends Hoover's wage conferences. Unfortunately, the strongest defense I can offer is "while this wasn't a great idea, the evidence suggests it didn't have enough of an effect to do any harm". There were other more serious theoretical and methodological problems with the paper I'm commenting on that form the bulk of what I wrote.
Why Study Economics Philosophically?
7 hours ago