- Bob Murphy apparently thinks that since Krugman's column wasn't full of budget numbers that implies it was about exploring the working relationship between Mellon and Hoover. Rob Rawlings has the right idea in the comment section: it's really not good that accusations of dishonesty get tossed around so carelessly.
- LK has two excellent posts on this - one on Hoover's speech in 1936 and one on the memoir passage.
I have a soft spot for Hoover. He was an interesting guy with very nuanced ideas about public life. He was thoughtful. He was sympathetic. And I think I kind of feel bad for him too.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Daniel wrote: "- Bob Murphy apparently thinks that since Krugman's column wasn't full of budget numbers that implies it was about exploring the working relationship between Mellon and Hoover."
ReplyDeleteOMG (even when not counting the tone of your post).
"Rob Rawlings has the right idea in the comment section: it's really not good that accusations of dishonesty get tossed around so carelessly."
Is that what you told yourself before you wrote that post about how disgusting you found Don Boudreaux' behavior?
1. OMG? You got anything besides that?
Delete2. My list of people I find fault with as people is pretty short, and it's pretty much restricted to those who are also occasionally chastised by their own side (and even by their own co-bloggers, but now we're getting into private correspondences). And even given all that, I don't know if I've ever called Boudreaux dishonest. Wrong, biased, etc. Maybe I've said dishonest before. But I can't recall.
"1. OMG? You got anything besides that?'
DeleteIn many previous posts, as did other people. All to no avail, as this post proves. So now only 'OMG' remains.
"2. My list of people I find fault with as people is pretty short, and it's pretty much restricted to those who are also occasionally chastised by their own side (and even by their own co-bloggers, but now we're getting into private correspondences). And even given all that, I don't know if I've ever called Boudreaux dishonest. Wrong, biased, etc. Maybe I've said dishonest before. But I can't recall."
You wrote that you were disgusted by his post (and the most natural characterization of the case you tried to make against him was that you found his post intellectually dishonest. Given that your arguments were actually quite easily refuted, I'd say you tossed around your accusation of 'intellectual dishonesty' quite carelessly.
I don't know what the point of the rest of your reply above is.
Think what you want to think. This post is about Hoover - I'm sick of fighting with you.
DeleteI also think that Hoover got a bad rap. After all, a great part of the New Deal started under Hoover. He may look austerian, but what examples did he have of economic recovery through gov't spending? Yes, he was afraid of socialism and communism, but what proof was there that radical ideas would work? Roosevelt, by contrast, was willing to experiment. Also, it seems that one of the best things to do was to go off of the gold standard. That was hardly obvious. John Stuart Mill may have understood, back in 1829, the need to inject money into the economy in recessions and depressions, but in the ensuing century, what gov't had followed that prescription?
ReplyDeleteThe way I put it: Hoover wanted liquidation accomplished, but accomplished with the least amount of human misery. Mellon thought that liquidation that was not accompanied by human misery would fail of its object.
ReplyDeleteBrad DeLong
Do you have any support at all for that claim? The quote commonly used just says Mellon endorsed liquidation, full stop, without any reference to misery (and what possible reason would he have for thinking misery itself was necessary?). Hoover explicitly says he rejected that viewpoint, saying nothing ameliorating misery while pursuing liquidation.
Delete