Origins of the Great Depression
Matthew R. Giorgio
http://glencoe.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0012122005/student_view0/chapter23/where_historians_disagree.html
Then answer:
1) Peruse the articles above on the causes of the Great Depression.
Upon which interpretations do each rely to make their case? What
arguments have fallen by the wayside? Are you convinced?
and
2) Peruse the articles above on the Great Depression and briefly
summarize their respective theses. What role does the government play
in each case? Why do you think these authors come to such wildly
different conclusions? What does this tell us about the historiography
of the Great Depression and New Deal?
and
3) Professor Robert Whaples of Wake Forest University recently
conducted a survey of economic historians on the causes of the Great
Depression. Read the article above and summarize his conclusions.
Again, why do you think the disagreement on this issue has continued
for so long?
and here is that broken link (I glued it together) to answer the
question:
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=1605
Matthew R. Giorgio
Peruse the articles above on the causes of the Great Depression. Upon
which interpretations do each rely to make their case? What arguments
have
agree
that the Harley-Smoot Tariff of 1930 caused the Depression to worsen.
They
believe that little investment and government spending caused the
Great
Dpression. They all believe that World War 2 helped bring America out
of
the Depression by stmulating the economy. Arguments that have fallen
on the
wayside include governmnet intervention in the economy, or
"malinvestment".
I lean more towrd the thery that little government spening caused the
Depression because a motionles economy woud only fail to adress the
needs
of the people because there is no spending, which woud lead to
recession.
summarize
their respective theses. What role does the government play in each
case?
Why do you think these authors come to such wildly different
conclusions?
What does this tell us about the historiography of the Great
Depression and
intervention in the economy worsened the depression. The Neoclassical
Perspecive believes that the New Deal policies slowed recovery from
the
Depression. The Huppi article believes that the bank failures were
significant in bringin about the Depression. The first one states that
the
government inflates and then readjusts the currency, causing
prosperity in
the first and decreased prfits in the later. The second one claims
that
governmetn sending had something to do with the Depression, and the
third
article states that the lack of interention on the part of the
federal
government caused the problem. Theycome to widely different
conlcusions
becuase they rely on different policies. The first shows certain New
Deal
Programs as factor exacerbating the stuation, the second shows
different
New Deal programs as the factors, and the third asserts that little
spending of the government brought about the Depression. This shows
that
many people in the United States overrate the policies of the New Deal
and
that they utiize a shallow reason such as the Crash of '29 to say that
it
caused the Great Depression.
On Mar 1, 7:49 pm, "Matthew R. Giorgio" <matthew.r.gior...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
Edith Mata
2) In the Great Myths of the great depression article was he thought the poor decisions that the government made. In the article The Great from a Neoclassical because of his in Perspective, he makes a prediction about U.S economy increasing and decreasing and the government spending about. In the article “What role did the fed play in causing the great depression?” they blame that the blanks were responsible for the depression since the government little intervened. The reason why the authors came to wildly conclusion was because they all had different position and background about the depression. It tells us about the historiography of the great depression and new deal is that the New Deal was not welcome in some of the articles making it seem that many people disregard it many were still in surprise about the depression .
Danielle Esquivel
1. The articles all agree to some exent on what affected the depression. The article,about how spending was the cause seems to be the most reasonable but all the articles have some truth to them.
2. The government are the people who made the poor choices on what to do with money in the Great myth articles. The authors came to such different conclusions because of how they looked at the situation. But no matter how they look at it they each were somewhat correct because the reason it happened isnt quiet clear.
3. The disagreement lasted for so long because the points of view for the authors are understandable and make sense. The great myths to some extent overlap each other so they can all be correct if used the right way.
Nelsy Equihua
factors contributing together to make the depression longer. The
article said that the Fed made the wrong moves, and that the economy
would have been better if they had left the it alone. The Smoot-
Hawley Act was one of the worst actions to take for the government
because it increased tariffs on importation, congress even made a
petition to not pass it. The article has fallen wayside because it
does not really give a precise reason why the depression lasted so
long, and it says some factors were terrible but when asked if that
was the sole purpose it did not give a direct answer as to why the
depression was so long and difficult to overcome. I am somewhat
convinced that one single thing could not have caused the war but a
series of things did.
2. The government opposes without meaning to the natural flow of
things they cause the depression to prolong.
cindy gonzaga
From: Matthew R. Giorgio <matthew....@gmail.com>
To: AP US History - HSA-Dallas <HSA_...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 7:49 PM
Subject: Origins of the Great Depression
Roxanna
the government’s incompetence with the federal spending, but there are
also other factors that could have affected it as well. They agreed
that unnecessary tariffs helped freeze the economic flow and only
further slowed investments, which were important for the continuous
improvement of our economy. Though there are shared interpretations,
there are also ones that have fallen off the radar, such as
"malinvestment". The idea that most appeals to me is that the
government was at fault to some extent because it did not help
stimulate the economy, as Nahid and others have said. Though the
government cannot tell you to go out and spend all your money, they
can make it easier to do so, and implementing tariffs that ultimately
made conditions worse was not the proper way to do so.
2) Reed believes that the depression caused many problems and
complications that even today people still think horribly of the trade
markets, and that the government was too involved; it would only make
the depression worse every time they tried to make a change to the
economy. Cole and Ohanian say that a completely new stock would be
needed to fix the situation. The government was never seen well by
these authors and it was common to see the government as obstacle to
the improvement of the economy. In the first article the government
was incompetent to and unable to help improve the situation with their
attempts to fix the government through the implementation of the
tariffs. The second said that the government was only one of the
reasons why the depression could not be fixed, but there were many
other factors. As to why these authors were able to reach such
different conclusions even thought they were researching the same
topic is because there is still no popularly accepted reason WHY the
depression happened. Everyone had their own interpretations because
everyone looks for different things. Everyone has different biases and
beliefs, so while one author might be far left one might be far right,
and so even though they were researching the same topic, they were
able to reach different conclusions. As a result, different people
will see and interpret the government, new deal, and even the great
depression itself, in different ways. This concept can be applies to
any one in the nation, not just the authors.
3) Professor Robert Whaples of Wake Forest University describes other
perspectives for and why the depression happened and why it took so
long to resolve, and again they are different from one another. One
says, again, that because the government did not stimulate the
economy, the economy froze and it was impossible to circulate the
money to citizens. Another describes that the conditions were not as
bad as historians tell geographically. Other explanations are touched
as well, but ultimately, there will never be a popularly accepted
cause for the depression because there is no way of knowing what tit
is. People will continue to search and hypothesize, but it is
impossible to find the right reason. To some extent, I agree with him;
there will always be different ways of viewing the depression because
there will always be different ways of thinking, not only is this why
it has taken so long to find an answer for what caused the depression,
this is why we never will.
>
Nazeera Siddiqui
1. All of the interpretations of the Great Depression were made by examining the events that were occurring during the time and the factors and their relations amongst themselves. In other words, they categorized the cause-and-effects by the different aspects. They agreed on most factors. The author of “Why It Happened” said most people lived below the poverty line and earned less than what was needed to support a family. Native Americans and Mexican Americans did not get a share in the prosperity in the roaring 1920s but they were not the only ones suffering. Farmers had to face large debts, high taxes, and a drop in crop prices. With the farmers unable to pay their debt, the bank crisis resulted. Banks failed which caused small business people to fail and/or go bankrupt. Consumer debt then weakened the economy. Drops in consumer spending led to the reduction in production and the loss of worker’s jobs. Throughout the 1920s the gap between the richest and poor increased. The residential construction that once boomed between 1924 and 1927 depleted as the immigration law which restricted foreign immigrations was put into effect. It is believed that the Federal Reserve played a role in weakening the economy. It slowed the growth of the money supply, and then allowed the money supply to fall dramatically after the stock market crash. Also, Republican tariff policies damaged the economy, like the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 and the Hawley-Smoot Tariff of 1930 which increased tariff rates are a factor; which is agreed by all of them. The result of this was decreased international trade. The other two interpretations agreed with this for the most part, but some of the factors were not as much regarded as a main factor as were others from other interpretations; such as the ones regarding the Federal Reserve and the government intervention on the economy. Also, it is disputed whether the banks failing was a cause or a symptom. I am somewhat convinced that a series of factors led to the Great Depression.
2. They came to different conclusions because of their different perspectives. In the Great Myths of the Great Depression it mentioned the poor decisions of the government. The one from The Great Depression from a Neoclassical Perspective says the culprit is New Deal policies. In “What role did the fed play in causing the great depression?” the Federal Reserve is criticized for not intervening enough.
3. The economy is complex and the Great Depression was a unique event. There will always be different interpretations because of the complexity, the different ways of thinking, and the fact that there is no certainty. Some believe that it is monetary forces and the blame is on the Federal Reserve while others believed that banking failures were a symptom of the depression. One problem was that neither the Federal Reserve data nor the newspaper accounts were that informative. The significant details that are missing are the reason why one conclusion can be made.
Bobby Dillingham
Bobby Dillingham
The administration of Franklin Roosevelt responded to the Great Depression by expending relief money to those in need. As William Lloyd Garrison Jr. puts it “An enormous outpouring… of the compass” (Document D). The government created agencies such as the NRA to employ the unemployed in menial jobs so as to give them wages. These measures were effective to the extent that while they provided for temporary alleviation, “Six billion… national debt”, therefore pressuring the government at the expense of the individual citizen. As a result of such measures, the role of the federal government changed in that while during President Hoover’s administration a laissez-faire economy was prominent, Roosevelt’s aims toward directly aiding the public showed signs of a federal government becoming more involved in the lives of its citizens, similarly to that of a socialist state.
Edith Mata
Bobby Dillingham
Field Trip DMA: The 1920s
The divide between traditionalists and modernists during the 1920s deepened, as is evidenced by their differing themes in their art. The “Aeroplane” by Elsie Driggs shows the rise of technology in America by showing a metal airplane encompassing almost all of the space in the portrait. On the other hand, the “Woman With Plants” by Grant Wood shows how the rural landscape in America was very important by showing the woman old, which is an indication of wisdom as well as tradition. Since rustic aspects of American life were being eclipsed by the advent of urbanization, traditionalists in an attempt to preserve their viewpoint address the situation by creating paintings heavily influenced by traditionalist aspects of America.