Economia
Thomas Sowell explica:
"... From all this, and much else that is said in the media and on the campaign trail, you might think that the economy requires government intervention to revive and create jobs. It is Beltway dogma that the government has to "do something."
History tells a different story. For the first 150 years of this country's existence, the federal government felt no great need to "do something" when the economy turned down. Over that long span of time, the economic downturns were neither as deep nor as long lasting as they have been since the federal government decided that it had to "do something" in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929, which set a new precedent.
One of the last of the "do nothing" presidents was Warren G. Harding. In 1921, under President Harding, unemployment hit 11.7 percent – higher than it has been under President Obama. Harding did nothing to get the economy stimulated.
Far from spending more money to try to "jump start" the economy, President Harding actually reduced government spending, as the tax revenues declined during the economic downturn.
This was not a matter of
absent-mindedly neglecting the economy. President Harding deliberately rejected
the urging of his own Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, to
intervene.
The 11.7 percent unemployment rate in 1921 fell to 6.7 percent in 1922, and then to 2.4 percent in 1923. It is hard to think of any government intervention in the economy that produced such a sharp and swift reduction in unemployment as was produced by just staying out of the way and letting the economy rebound on its own...
A great myth has grown up that President Franklin D. Roosevelt saved the American economy with his interventions during the Great Depression of the 1930s. But a 2004 economic study concluded that government interventions had prolonged the Great Depression by several years. Obama is repeating policies that failed under FDR..."
Mais
Veja também: As raízes do intervencionismo
- Os Três Grandes Mitos Sobre A Grande Depressão
Historian Stephen Davies names three persistent myths about the Great Depression. Myth #1: Herbert Hoover was a laissez-faire president, and it was his lack of action that lead to an economic collapse. Davies argues that in fact, Hoover was a very interventionist...
- A Grande Depressão Na Perspectiva De Hoje
Lessons of the 1930sThere could be trouble aheadIn 2008 the world dodged a second Depression by avoiding the mistakes that led to the first. But there are further lessons to be learned for both Europe and America“YOU’RE right, we did it,” Ben Bernanke...
- Alemanha - Mercado De Trabalho
How Germany retained jobs despite downturn — and what it means for usBy Zachary RothAs the United States struggles to replace the 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession, it makes sense to look at the one developed nation that came out of the global...
-
Why is Brazil "Underdeveloped"?John H. Coatsworth The numbers tell the story (see the table). Brazil is underdeveloped because its economy failed to grow or grew too slowly for most of its history. In the colonial era, sugar, gold and slavery did not...
- Governo Obama: Pacote Fiscal De Estímulos Ou Expansão Permanente Do Governo?
Ed Lazear acredita que é a segunda alternativa. Ele argumenta: "Congress and the Obama administration have used the economic downturn as an excuse to expand the size of government. Calling it a stimulus, they have instead put in place a spending agenda...
Economia
A economia não precisa do governo
Thomas Sowell explica:
"... From all this, and much else that is said in the media and on the campaign trail, you might think that the economy requires government intervention to revive and create jobs. It is Beltway dogma that the government has to "do something."
History tells a different story. For the first 150 years of this country's existence, the federal government felt no great need to "do something" when the economy turned down. Over that long span of time, the economic downturns were neither as deep nor as long lasting as they have been since the federal government decided that it had to "do something" in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929, which set a new precedent.
One of the last of the "do nothing" presidents was Warren G. Harding. In 1921, under President Harding, unemployment hit 11.7 percent – higher than it has been under President Obama. Harding did nothing to get the economy stimulated.
Far from spending more money to try to "jump start" the economy, President Harding actually reduced government spending, as the tax revenues declined during the economic downturn.
The 11.7 percent unemployment rate in 1921 fell to 6.7 percent in 1922, and then to 2.4 percent in 1923. It is hard to think of any government intervention in the economy that produced such a sharp and swift reduction in unemployment as was produced by just staying out of the way and letting the economy rebound on its own...
A great myth has grown up that President Franklin D. Roosevelt saved the American economy with his interventions during the Great Depression of the 1930s. But a 2004 economic study concluded that government interventions had prolonged the Great Depression by several years. Obama is repeating policies that failed under FDR..."
Mais
Veja também: As raízes do intervencionismo
loading...
- Os Três Grandes Mitos Sobre A Grande Depressão
Historian Stephen Davies names three persistent myths about the Great Depression. Myth #1: Herbert Hoover was a laissez-faire president, and it was his lack of action that lead to an economic collapse. Davies argues that in fact, Hoover was a very interventionist...
- A Grande Depressão Na Perspectiva De Hoje
Lessons of the 1930sThere could be trouble aheadIn 2008 the world dodged a second Depression by avoiding the mistakes that led to the first. But there are further lessons to be learned for both Europe and America“YOU’RE right, we did it,” Ben Bernanke...
- Alemanha - Mercado De Trabalho
How Germany retained jobs despite downturn — and what it means for usBy Zachary RothAs the United States struggles to replace the 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession, it makes sense to look at the one developed nation that came out of the global...
-
Why is Brazil "Underdeveloped"?John H. Coatsworth The numbers tell the story (see the table). Brazil is underdeveloped because its economy failed to grow or grew too slowly for most of its history. In the colonial era, sugar, gold and slavery did not...
- Governo Obama: Pacote Fiscal De Estímulos Ou Expansão Permanente Do Governo?
Ed Lazear acredita que é a segunda alternativa. Ele argumenta: "Congress and the Obama administration have used the economic downturn as an excuse to expand the size of government. Calling it a stimulus, they have instead put in place a spending agenda...