Most underrated US president

[-]

Fastback98@reddit

Unpopular opinion: as great as Coolidge was on cutting taxes and regulations, the “Roaring Twenties” that we give him credit for was largely rampant money printing that fueled the Great Depression.

[-]

ThatsMarvelous@reddit

Unpopular opinion: I downvote every unpopular opinion that is actually a popular opinion

[-]

HooiserBall@reddit

Libertarianism as a whole is an unpopular opinion. It’s why we’re a minority.

[-]

pharmdad711@reddit

Right!

Imagine running on…

“Elect me and I’ll leave you the f*ck alone”

Most ‘Muricans want a wet nurse

[-]

HooiserBall@reddit

Eh, it depends. Some want a wet nurse, others want to tell others what do to.

[-]

claybine@reddit

Many people are libertarian and may not know it.

[-]

Fastback98@reddit

Yours is actually a very common reaction to “unpopular opinion” replies. Being common, it is therefore popular, and I have up-voted you accordingly.

[-]

Absolutely wrong on what fueled the Great Depression. “Rampant money printing” was lending into productive economy. Useless money printing is creating government debt by the Fed, which didn’t happen during his term.

[-]

Fastback98@reddit

Are you saying that money printing by the Fed didn’t contribute to the huge rise in margin debt, which most historians of the Depression credit as the initial cause of the bank defaults?

Good read that summarizes several historical studies.

[-]

different_option101@reddit

While the Feds dumb policies have contributed to the crash and bank failures, they weren’t the main causes of the Great Depression. Our financial institutions are a lot more leveraged now vs 1920s. The Fed caused the market crash by hiking rates after allowing the stock market to inflate. If paper gains would have been wiped off, it would not cause the depression. It happened before without causing the depression. The GD was a consequence of multiple government policies, staring with hiking tariffs and stalling the international trade. The final nail in the coffin was a confiscation of gold by TDR. The idea that someone is going to invest in any business a country after the government robbed its population is absurd.

Most historians also believe that WW2 created an economic boom in the U.S. and that oil embargo in 1970s was a cause of inflation. Neither of these could be further from the truth.

[-]

Fastback98@reddit

I assume you mean FDR? Yeah, the gold confiscation was dumb, and so was FDR phoning in the controlled price of gold each day, and so were the protectionist tariffs that were enacted when it became obvious that the boom of the 20’s was a mirage.

But none of those would have occurred at the degree to which they did without the huge expansion of debt and margin, which would not have happened without the Fed.

[-]

different_option101@reddit

Mirage? Are you serious? GDP grew at almost 5% on average, the economy wasn’t as financialized as it is today, and GDP was primarily based of production and consumption numbers.

[-]

Fastback98@reddit

Yes. A mirage. That’s what a debt-fueled bubble book looks like. The money runs into all corners of the economy, so GDP and unemployment numbers look great during the boom. After the bubble bursts however, those numbers over-correct and look horrible until the debt money is cleared, usually by default.

[-]

different_option101@reddit

That’s not really how it works. Artificially low interest rates certainly have a negative effect, because it causes malinvestment. However, there was a massive expansion of real economy. Production has exploded during that decade and lots of profitable ventures appeared in the US. Consumer debt was minuscule in comparison to todays levels (I’m not referring to nominal numbers). Factories are not a mirage, they are real assets. They don’t disappear with destruction of debt, they change hands. Further government intervention is what caused those factories to stop production. 1929 crash had a relative quick rebound. Things went downhill with the passage of Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930.

[-]

Fastback98@reddit

Factories being built with cheap money that otherwise would not have been built are the bubble, the mirage of a bigger economy than really exists. Factories changing hands is the debt and malinvestment being cleared. It’s really pretty simple, even using your example.

[-]

different_option101@reddit

Well, what were the interest rates on commercial loans? At which point interests were higher or what you think is appropriate? What do you think is appropriate interest?

Sounds like you’re set with your view and not willing to consider anything else. But I’ll try again. Coolidge cut taxes, there were multiple technological advances, there was an inflow of capital into the US due to post WWI situation in Europe, dollar was gaining more power vs European currencies. In short - there were a ton of factors that were positive for the domestic economy. You’re missing a bigger picture as you’re fixating on the Fed. GDP in 1929 was still higher than in 1928. It’s a fact. GDP didn’t start declining until 1930 and later.

You can make a good argument that economic collapse was engineered by the Fed and NYSE that margin called its clients. But 1920s had real economic growth. Is it possible that growth would be slower if not for the Feds policy? Sure.

But I’ll throw another monkey wrench in this - do you think the Fed controlled commercial interest rates at that time? If yes, how?

[-]

Fastback98@reddit

It doesn’t talk matter what I think interest should be, or should have been. That’s the point. No one person or committee should dictate interest rates; they should be set in a market environment.

And you seem to think that I’m saying there weren’t any other factors making the economy buoyant. There were. Radios and appliances went mainstream, and global trade expanded. I’m saying that the Fed caused the economy to run hotter and appear better than it really was. Just like the recent tech and then housing booms, when the Fed caused bubbles by throwing monetary gasoline on an already hot economy.

Final point: You accuse me of not listening to contrary information. That’s not true. I used to subscribe to the view that Coolidge was excellent in all facets, but then I read David Stockman’s book Deformation, and it completely changed my mind. It is perfectly detailed and sourced. I highly recommend it.

[-]

different_option101@reddit

Thanks for the recommendation, I’m definitely going to check out the book!

As far as I understood your position, which I think you continue to pound on - Fed’s policy was the primary cause. I believe you even said - most economists agree, or something of this sort. Well, again, I agree with certain aspects of your statement, such is the Fed is somewhat responsible for the stock market collapse of 1929, but I disagree with this Feds move and consequent collapse being the cause the Great Depression, nor I agree with a statement that majority of the progress of that time was due to Feds policy and interest rates, nor with a premise that the Fed artificially suppressed rates.

Here are my arguments against the premise that it’s mainly the Fed responsible for the economic boom and that the Fed is the main cause of the stock market collapse and of the GD:

Feds ability and desire to influence the market during most of the 1920s is overestimated. A few yrs prior to the crash of 1929 the Fed started hiking rates because of the stock market, not because the economy was “too hot”.
Feds ability was limited - US government has been paying down its debt = less demand from the largest borrower. Currency given to the government was returned to private market. This, always and every country, lowers interest rates. Basic supply and demand dynamics. So their involvement via OM ops was minimal or nonexistent.
The Fed didn’t have tools it has today - today, the Fed uses interest payments on excess reserves parked at the Fed by commercial banks to curb lending. This has been the case since 2009 or 2010, I can’t recall exactly. More on that later.
There was no reason to intervene - inflation was pretty low, there was even some deflation that followed one exception of post WWI inflation spike, the government didn’t need artificially low rates to borrow as it was paying of the debt. Basically, no motive except for “stocks are too high”, however, a few percentage bump is nothing to what I’ll cover later.
We have historic precedents where Feds low rates didn’t cause economic booms - just like it happens after every recession, the Fed drops rates, but economic activity takes a while to recover and banks are hesitant to lend money. And there was a post WWI recession and high inflation. Rates didn’t go down until after the inflation rate was down and the economy has recovered by then.
Probably the most important one - commercial banks can borrow from each other at whatever rate they want. And commercial banks lending is based on underlying economic economic conditions, rather than the Feds rate. Banks don’t need the Fed to create credit.
Influx of foreign capital naturally depressed interest rates. Again, basic supply and demand dynamics.
Lack of evidence of Fed being the main source of credit creation during most of the 1920s credit expansion - commercial banks’ liquidity needs were predominantly met by interbank borrowing, meaning commercial banks didn’t need Fed’s discount window. Feds rate almost didn’t matter, except for the banks that couldn’t borrow in a free market aka failing banks. In fact, reserves holdings by commercial banks remained pretty much leveled except up until 2008-2009.
NYSE. Referring to # 4 on Feds rates and stock market collapse of Oct 1929 - the Fed raised rates by some 3-4%, and they’ve been raising rates somewhat gradually over 2 years. That’s a plenty of time to adjust, mind you investors at that time weren’t as leveraged as in modern days.
The main suspect here is the NYSE, which started increasing margin requirements. There was a widespread decline in stock prices in 1928 after NYSE started raising margin requirements. There was a first substantial crash in March 1929 which was consequent to another hike in margin requirements. The NYSE more than doubled margin requirements, bringing it up to 50% before the Black Tuesday, which essentially triggered the stock market collapse and forced liquidations.

This is all documented history. My conclusion from this is that the Fed was a tiny blip which didn’t matter in overall context of the situation of that time. Was the boom a bit too excessive? Perhaps, otherwise there wouldn’t be a stock market bubble. This is pretty much a textbook definition of an Austrian economics business cycle, the only difference it occurred due to natural reasons, instead of the Fed being the epicenter.

I think the questions should be:

Would there be a major bust it the NYSE didn’t change margin requirements so rapidly and to such extent (it went from 10% to 50% in 2 yrs).
If the crash was orchestrated, who benefited the most from the crash? NYSE board consisted of owners of brokerage houses, financiers, bankers including Citibank and others that pushed the creation of the Fed and have a long history of ties with the government. For me it’s a clear motive - consolidate the industry so these players get a larger share of the market by wiping out their competitors.
Empirical evidence suggests that those individuals and institutions connected with NYSE benefited the most and had a conflict of interest as this whole situation was unfolding.

Bonus info - in more recent history, we have CITI and the others than largely benefited from 2008 crash and subsequent consolidation of financial sector. They also got preferential treatment and were immune from criminal prosecution. TARP bailout money which were given to capitalize banks under a pretense “to maintain commercial lending” ended up at the Feds excess reserves accounts of commercial banks which they get paid on, almost dollar for dollar. Feds rates were dropped to near zero post GFC, named as the worst crisis since the GD, and commercial lending to real economy has been slowing down ever since.

Everything above is the reason why I think most economic historians and those economists that tell us what to think about that period are wrong. Complicated math models only show what happens on balance sheets, but they don’t really provide much other details. I’m not a phd in economics, but I can put 2+2 together, I don’t have any skin in the game, I’m not saying my theory on the crisis being orchestrated is correct, that’s just my opinion, but I’m confident in my position on the chain of events that led to a stock market crash and subsequent following of the Great Depression, reasons for which I’ve described in my previous comments (in short - government interference).

[-]

Fastback98@reddit

I don’t disagree factually with any of the 10 points you cited. We disagree on the root cause and that respectful disagreement is ok.

I also agree with you about who benefits from these crashes. The connected interests make huge money on the way up, and then there’s a distribution phase, and then “they”, the smart, big money, make money on the way down in different ways.

I would point out two things for your consideration:

First, that the Fed is a nearly direct extension of the same people you’re pointing the finger at, and without this tool, the Federal Reserve, they would not be able to loot like this, on the way up, on the way down, and in the aftermath by buying everything up again cheaply.

Secondly, if all that’s required to cause a market crash along with sharply contracting employment and economic output is a hike in margin requirements, I think that makes it more likely that the economy as well as the market were artificially “juiced” by cheap money and low interest rates.

I’m working and won’t be able to reply very often today, but I’ve enjoyed this exchange and appreciate the level of effort in your replies.

[-]

different_option101@reddit

To clarify- you believe that the Fed created the bubble, I believe it occurred naturally. Is that right?

Same, good convo. Monday is a tough day. I’m sitting on a mega long zoom call and I was bored to death until I’ve decide to open Reddit lol

[-]

Fastback98@reddit

I think that’s a fair synopsis. I believe the Fed turned a strong expansion into a bubble through irresponsible monetary policy. I also believe the Fed made the depression last longer by keeping rates low And not letting the bad debts clear out naturally. FDR made it worse in tandem by confiscating and manipulating the price of gold.

[-]

different_option101@reddit

FDR authoritarian policies were a total failure. Yet again, he’s a figure that’s highly regarded by historians, including economic historians, as a savior. Our history is being interpreted by morons or bad actors with specific interests.

I still disagree on the Fed comment. There’s just no data to support it for that period, but there’s lots of evidence of massive private investments. Firms like NYSE added fuel to the fire by allowing x10 leverage. But considering the fact that regular people that drive most of the consumption weren’t wiped out, it’s hard to argue an economic collapse, because the demand was still there, and real assets were only changing hands. The collapse in real economy started in 1930 when our imports and exports went down, and went down dramatically. Consider the ripple effects of a loss from foreign trade loss being some 6-7% of GDP. That’s what caused a crack in people’s ability to continue to spend, on top of the higher prices due to trade war. Bottom line is we had multiple bad stock market crashes in 250+ yrs, but we had only one Great Depression. Gotta ask if the stock market was really a cause and couldn’t have been a strong enough catalyst to tank the economy. I’d say it’s impossible, again, because it never happened before, nor after. Coincidentally, we didn’t have that level of government interference via regulation, tariffs, confiscation, price controls, etc during other recessions.

I see your argument about the Fed prolonging the recession by letting rates stay low, but that doesn’t make any sense and counter your own point that low interests fuel unsustainable growth. 40% of our banking sector was destroyed, I think that’s a pretty massive cleaning from malinvestment of capital. The rebound didn’t start until there was some confidence in our system after Supreme Court ruled many of FDRs policies unconstitutional in 1935 and 1936, but this fucker pretty much threatened the Supreme Court and there were some hick ups in immediately after.

Long story short - authoritarians will mess up the economy and will be praised by the establishment. That’s why it’s hard to have nice things today. They continue with similar to New Deal actions, though thankfully, not to the same extreme, but who know what comes in 2025.

[-]

Fastback98@reddit

After the period of gold standard suspension, the developed world literally trusted the United States to be the single reserve currency, foolish though it was.

[-]

SocialChangeNow@reddit

A 1963 study by economists Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz found that the Fed's monetary policy was largely to blame for the Great Depression.

[-]

claybine@reddit

Care to elaborate? Can't just drop a bombshell and then leave.

[-]

Erik-Zandros@reddit

Sounds familiar

[-]

RupsjeNooitgenoeg@reddit

Excuse my ignorance here, but who are you refering to here? I'm guessing either Obama or Trump but I'm not sure.

[-]

cleto0@reddit

the past 40 years have seen every single president spend money that they don’t collect in taxes. the FED is responsible for printing money to cover the difference, often trillions of dollars, and there is no end in sight. not just obama and trump, also look at bush 1/2, clinton and biden. Remember the congressmen/women who control the purse of the US treasury and you will see that all are equally to blame for this travesty of civil service.

[-]

TheTangoFox@reddit

It rhymes at the very least

[-]

thriftyturtle@reddit

During the 20s the fed lowered rates to help Europe which needed lower interest rates to rebuild. This largely caused the boom.

[-]

HuskerStorm@reddit

We are in the Roaring 20's II: Idiotic Boogaloo.

[-]

Free_Mixture_682@reddit

I was about to say this

[-]

Fastback98@reddit

What are you waiting for?

[-]

Free_Mixture_682@reddit

You did it better than I and faster.

[-]

SolidSnake179@reddit

Also wanted to add, Deregulation itself isn't bad. Our history of deregulation with zero accountability or "pass the bubble" people though is astounding. Deregulation is absolutely wonderful. Holding those accountable to the MAX who abuse the public trust is necessary too. No matter how bad it gets. That's how we avoid a great depression or contain it correctly so as to not let it break down the entire economy. Short version, deregulation doesn't mean out of control, but it usually ends that way.

[-]

SolidSnake179@reddit

100 percent true. There were a lot of societal issues at play as well. You might say the groundwork was laid for unavoidable disaster.

[-]

bell37@reddit

Wasn’t it his & Harding’s economic policies that help mitigate a depression in 1924 and 1927 and helped usher in an era of prosperity after what was seen to be a great deal of economic and political turmoil and instability due to the aftermath of the Great War? He balanced the budget, pushed back to gold standard, and lowered federal debt by $10 billion after leaving office.

If I also recall correctly It was also Hoovers & FDRs reaction to the stock market crash of 1929 that caused the economy to nosedive.

[-]

Fastback98@reddit

That’s a good question to which I do not know the answer. I’m overdue to reread Stockman’s “Deformation” which is the best history of American monetary policy that I’ve ever read.

[-]

Diarrea_Cerebral@reddit

So it's basically it's Kirchnerism without tax cuts.

[-]

WARD0Gs2@reddit

Wait I’ve seen this show before!

[-]

pharmdad711@reddit

Also retired to a modest home in Northampton MA…

Not like these current clowns

[-]

super_hot_juice@reddit

Why are Americans arguing against taxes instead of arguing against people who actually spend their tax money? It's no taxes that make your life quality worse, it's people who use your tax money that make your life quality worse. Sounds familiar does it ...

[-]

murphy365@reddit

He played a big part in the US government's surveillance of US citizens. If I'm giving grades to president's he gets a low "C".

[-]

claybine@reddit

In regards to who's regarded as the best, some of them being slave owners, he's the best. A, easily.

[-]

murphy365@reddit

Taxation is slavery. All presidents ever have benefited from taxation.

[-]

sourcreamnoodles@reddit

Just curious is there any president that you would give an A?

[-]

murphy365@reddit

Kennedy was so good he was killed for it, still "B". William Henry Harrison was the best president ever high "B". No

[-]

claybine@reddit

How are you going to significantly rate Coolidge lower for surveillance and give him a C and not take off points to Kennedy for his foreign policy? The Cuban Missile Crisis could be criticized, some love his handling of it.

[-]

sourcreamnoodles@reddit

I guess it makes sense, Libertarians almost by definition are perpetually unsatisfied with government.

[-]

PM_ME_DNA@reddit

Garfield

[-]

Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit

Is there a slave Master you would give an A?

[-]

sourcreamnoodles@reddit

Touché. No I wouldn't, but I'm not presidential historian so I don't know much about president's before the modern era.

[-]

Mead_and_You@reddit

William Henry Harrison. 10/10 Presidency. A++

The world would be a much better place if every president followed his example.

[-]

KNEnjoyer@reddit

He ended open borders, allowed drugs to be patented, caused the Great Depression with expansionary monetary policy, and kept tariffs high.

Calvin Coolidge is extremely overrated by libertarians.

[-]

MarshalNey@reddit

As a member of a private sector union, I resent the fact you left out the part where his hatred of the freedom of association was so strong he sent the military to go arrest/kill those damn pesky union organizers who thought 16 hour days, 7 days a week for shit pay and a swift kick in the ass out the door if you were injured was a bit unreasonable.

[-]

thelowbrassmaster@reddit

The 1929 crash was after his presidency, and the great depression would have been a minor sad if not for FDR. Also libertarians are not a monolith, some people do support borders and patent laws to varying degrees.

[-]

silence9@reddit

Patent laws inherently prohibit competition in production. Being pro Fair market competition is one of the key components of being a libertarian. In no way is it fair to enforce patents.

[-]

thelowbrassmaster@reddit

There is no reason to produce anything if someone who has more marketing budget than you can make your exact product and sell it with more commercials than you can afford.

[-]

silence9@reddit

Marketing plays a roll in what is sold, but it's not the end all. Cheaper or quality is also going to play a large roll.

[-]

thelowbrassmaster@reddit

I understand, but there are examples of people getting their innovations taken and redistributed by richer people in countries with no patents like China, making the originator yield no profit. An example like that is free trade and innovation being stifled as this is what leeds to monopolies.

[-]

silence9@reddit

This is still done even with the patent system. For a lot of patents it's very easy to change something minor but significant enough to get away with it. This only doesn't hold true with things like imagery, (mickey mouse for example) and chemical processes for making things like epinephrine.

Amazon is a great example. The innovation was the website. Today though, any decent developer can replicate Amazon's site. The key though is the logistics system. But, if there was no patent/copyright on the logo, a person in local region could use the image and take a share of the overall revenue by being faster I'm a specific region and likely with specific products.

You could live next door to the person who makes the amazon product you purchased, but because of the copyright and the logistics system that must exist to support it, that product must still go to Amazon's warehouses to be prepacked and shipped back.

[-]

longsnapper53@reddit

I love Coolidge, but the market crash was his fault. What wasn’t his fault was the depression, which was also not FDR’s fault, but rather Herbert Hoover deciding to pluck out every brain cell possible one by one to create disastrous economic policy in the aftermath that kept the nation on a severe decline. If only Junior wore socks…

[-]

SolidSnake179@reddit

Nobody could make society do right either. People often forget that policy doesn't make people do anything. Its policy or influence. I think we lose wisdom when we don't look at the totality of things rightly. I know we pare a lot down these days because of our attention span, but there's so much wisdom lost in the details of that era. It's why I genuinely fear and expect to see it again.

[-]

TranscendentSentinel@reddit

Facts

[-]

Djbonononos@reddit

Do you mean it was the fault of his policies which were blindly continued following his departure? If so, okay bruh

[-]

Djbonononos@reddit

"The Great Depression would have been a minor sad" Jesus bro go read some world history. Yes it was unconstitutional Socialism that FDR used, but don't play down dire situations that lead to major fascist movements.

However, you correctly stated that Coolidge was far removed from the Great Depression. I would posit, and wonder if you would agree, that it was more a problem of later leaders (at the Fed especially) following such bullish economic philosophy that led to the crash.

[-]

thelowbrassmaster@reddit

It was supposed to be a joke, but I do agree that it was largely the federal reserve, but FDR didn't help and his court packing made things worse with a lot of their decisions.

[-]

Verum14@reddit

minor sad is hilarious tho so thanks for that one

[-]

KNEnjoyer@reddit

It's almost as if a president's policies can have lasting impacts after his presidency!

[-]

Negrom@reddit

Open boarders aren't inherently anti-Libertarian by any means. If anything, I'd imagine more Libertarians support some form of boarder control than don't.

inb4 'not a true libertarian'

[-]

ireallylikedolphins@reddit

Having more coherent systems for determining citizen from non-citizen would drastically reduce the problems caused by illegal immigration.

I can't speak for everyone, but imo immigration could be completely open and wouldn't be a big deal IF we had our shit together info-tec wise.

We DON'T' have our shit together which is the root cause of our immigration struggles imo

[-]

SolidSnake179@reddit

Right. Until we can run our own house with ant level of respect at all again, we'd probably better keep that locked down. I'm for right, moral and responsible border and immigration policy. I disagree with any reliance on tech though. It's foolish. Vulnerable and exploitable in far too many ways. About as good as believing a self-checkout at Walmart is going to stop theft. Lol. I'm still for peaceful and cooperative foreign policy aid in THEIR country to resolve economic/social issues and defeat the drug state there. This stuff is all easily doable if you get compromised and cowardly people out of the way. It's just that there's so many with skin in stuff it shouldn't be. The problems always amazingly stay there.

[-]

sadson215@reddit

What we really need to do is terminate the welfare state

[-]

Jack21113@reddit

How do most people on this sub feel about open borders? Personally I’m not a big fan and want to know what others on here think

[-]

cranialleaddeficient@reddit

He ended open borders? Awesome! Shame they didn’t stay closed

[-]

KNEnjoyer@reddit

Why do you hate the global poor?

[-]

cambat2@reddit

You cannot have open borders with a welfare state

[-]

Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit

You can;t with closed borders either. People won;t abide by it and only the worst will come through instead of good people. You are in the same moral camp as gun control advocates and prohibitionists. The government will never make a strong border as long as people want to come here. It's central planning. It would actually be easier to get rid of the drug war than get control of the border. Literally.

[-]

PunkCPA@reddit

Why is disagreement always hatred?

[-]

JagerGS01@reddit

Search for the video: Immigration and World Poverty Explained with Gumballs. It's a truly interesting visual exercise.

[-]

LTtheWombat@reddit

Why should the global poor be allowed to emigrate to the US and live off our tax dollars? And taxes and benefits for immigrants and the border can be wide open.

[-]

Free_Mixture_682@reddit

How did Coolidge cause an expansive monetary policy? That had deeper roots based on propping up the Bank of England rather than funding deficit spending by the U.S. government.

[-]

CantaloupeOk1843@reddit

He didn’t “cause the GD”

The Fed is rightly seen by many as the entity most responsible for the GD.

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great-depression

[-]

TranscendentSentinel@reddit

He did not cause the depression

One of the most frequent criticisms levied against Coolidge is that his laissez-faire economic policies laid the groundwork for the Great Depression. This argument is deeply flawed and ignores the broader context of the global economic situation. While it’s true that the stock market crash of 1929 marked the beginning of the Great Depression, the causes were multifaceted and cannot be pinned solely on Coolidge’s administration.

The reality is that Coolidge left office with a strong economy, a balanced budget, and a reduced national debt. The speculative bubble in the stock market was not a direct result of his policies but rather of the widespread exuberance and lack of regulation in certain financial markets—a phenomenon that had been building for years and which was exacerbated by factors beyond Coolidge's control.

Moreover, it was the policy responses to the crash, particularly under President Hoover, that contributed to the severity and duration of the Depression. Hoover’s protectionist trade policies, such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, and his interventions in the economy, which were contrary to Coolidge’s principles, significantly worsened the situation. These actions, combined with global economic instability, played a far more critical role in the onset of the Great Depression than anything Coolidge did or did not do.

[-]

tyrus424@reddit

Expansionary monetary policy didnt cause the depression, contractionary monetary policy did, inflation (yes im aware this is not the old definition) was 0.5% for this period sure the money supply increased 40% but it was keeping pace with improvements in productivity so the purchasing power of money wasn't being eroded.

[-]

no wars

[-]

Seventh_Stater@reddit

Gigachad of gigachads.

[-]

FartSmart69@reddit

Destabilize everything.

Corrupt everything.

Leave.

Great Depression.

[-]