While President Hoover was heavily criticized for not doing enough to alleviate the initial problems of the Great Depression, he had already gained a reputation as a great provider of relief. Hoover also seems critical of absolute capitalism and the potential dangers of large businesses holding monopolies ("it is no system of laissez faire").
What is, then, Hoover's ideal imagination of the government and the economy? How does it manifest itself in his initial relief programs? Why doesn't it work?
And then, the inevitable question--what do you make of the repatriation of Mexican Americans? Why did the Hoover administration approve this?
Hoover did not believe in "a forceful role of the government in the economy." Ideally, he wanted to continue Coolidge's policies of "minimum government involvement." With the federal Reserve monetary policy he took government money out of the economy. But, he failed to realize that the economy was already going downhill which is why this did not work. People could not "perform community service" or be a "rugged individual" if the economy does not have the money to support that. An already failing economy will just suffer more when support money is pulled out of it.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Mexican repatriation, I find this very shocking, but then again people were looking for scapegoats of the failure of the economy during this time. It is not totally surprising that these immigration acts are being created. The Hoover administration probably approved this because they thought there was no other solution to decrease the amount of money spent in the country.
This doesn't work because the economy was already on a downward spiral by the time this comes into play. He does not see this and the result is a failure in achieving its purpose.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Mexican repatriation, the purpose of this was to put the blame on another group of people, and I find this shocking.
Herbert Hoover thought that it would be best for the economy if the government wouldn't get involved to much. He feared that that this wouldn't be good for the american individualism. The idea that job loss or poverty is an individuals own fault and responsibility seems very unfair to me. No one wants to be poor and surely does everything to have a decent job. But the government has to make sure that there are enough jobs for everyone.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the Mexicanrepatriation I have to say that I am a little confused about that, I wonder why they choosed Mexicans to sperse, America had immigrants from a lot of different countries at that time. Was it because it was easier to have them go back because Mexico isn't that far?
I think that Hoover saw the giving of too much support as letting the people depend of government when the country was founded on the government depending of the people. He was a hero to many in the 1st world war and many people saw this actions of things he might do in office. They saw that he had plans to help people and get people back up and running. The thing was though, Hoover didn't want too many people depending on his plans lasting forever. He didn't want to create an "addict" of his handout. He wanted to keep the american initiative alive and able to grow like in the grow of the nation.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Hoover administration approved the Mexican repatriation as a way to preserve the american initiative and to create more jobs for natural citizens. Many americans saw the mexican population as the main reason why the economy was failing and the reason why the unemployment rate was so high. The Hoover administration was this as an opportunity to saw the economy at whatever the cost and they went along and did it.
Hoover thought that a government that was less involved the economy was better, but when he took the government money out of the economy it was already in a downward spiral and removing that check just made it worse. The Mexican repatriation was something that I had never heard of. I find it shocking that it is not covered more in schools. It is another example of placing blame in the wrong place.
ReplyDeleteHoover didn't believe in too much government involvement. He wanted people to hold a little more responsibility when it came to their lives. As Hannah said, this concept seems unfair. The Mexican repatriation was a scpapegoat and blame game example. We always target a group of people and blame them even though they are innocent.
ReplyDeleteObviously, Hoover believed that with less government intervention, the economy would somehow thrive and save itself from destruction. However, being unaware of its current downhill direction, Hoover's elimination of government money only made matters worse. If Hoover had been more gradual, and perhaps had more knowledge on the economy's state, maybe his policy would not have had such a negative outcome. Therefore, because the economy was already not up to par, this plan failed drastically.
ReplyDeleteAs basically everyone has mentioned previously, the Mexican repatriation was a "scapegoat"; during economic crisis, it is part of human nature to blame other groups of people. Hoover and his administration probably sought a decrease in spending with the incoming immigrants.
It is quite evident the Hoover didn't want too much government involvement regarding the economy. He restricted them with a lot of things. And it just began to get worse. And by the time he wanted to change his ways, it was already too late. the Mexican repatriation is the perfect example of an American scapegoat. They don't want to be blamed for their actions, so what do they do? Blame it on the minorities.
ReplyDeleteHoover believed in an economy with minimal government intervention. His economic plans essentially drained the economy of essential government funds, which just intensified the failure of the economy. As the economy was tanking, Hoover needed to distract the general population, and chose Mexicans as the unfortunate victims. It was his assumption that time could be bought to fix the economy, through distracting the public.
ReplyDeleteHoover wanted to see a self reliant American people, but recognized there are certain services that the government could provide that no other entity could do as well, for example, the military and irrigation. Hoover must've strongly believed in the power of the free market to balance itself out and amend it's own mistakes, but if it has a structural issue, then government intervention is most commonly needed. The repatriation of Mexicans was not that surprising, I just didn't know that they were scapegoated by the government back then as much as they were now. People probably thought that they were a damper on the economy and that they were taking good American jobs.
ReplyDeletePresident Hoover was absolutely right about the potential dangerous of absolute capitalism, which means the monopolies of commerce and political power. The pinching thing is just that he was not good at timing, it was not a good time to let the market develop all by itself in a emergency.The theory president Hoover believe is the country would be better off under less governmental control of the economy, which i think totally is an acceptable idea for the country if the nation is under great prosperity. In contrast, it is obviously not the good time to pull back during the crisis. Repatriation of Mexican just seems unacceptable,stunning, and not dignified to me,this is what a bad loser does.
ReplyDeleteHoover wasn't exactly fond of a strong federal (governmental) presence in the economy. In Hoover's ideal government plan, he wished to follow in the footsteps of Coolidge, and have minimal governmental interaction with the economy. Using the federal Reserve monetary policy, Hoover was able to remove most-all government money from the economy. this failed because Hoover failed to realize that economy was already plummeting and removing money from it was the last thing it needed. The Hoover Administration approved of the repatriation of Mexican Americans because they didn't want to be to blame for the whole mess. The Mexican Americans where the unfortunate victims of becoming a scapegoat.
ReplyDelete