The Great Depression of the 1930s

[Masada]

Other than being anti-German, what's wrong with Tooze?

Being patently biased, and allowing that to influence one's treatment of the subject is reason enough to avoid it.

 

[LightSpectra]

plus the scheming of Eugenio Pacelli (better known later as Pius XII - funny how he was attacked by some people for actions as Pope during WW2, but his actions in disbanding catholic opposition in the Centre Party to Hitler in 1932 usually gets forgotten) to get Hitler into government.

Why stop there, not going to blame the entire Great Depression on the Catholic Church?

Pope Pius XI is probably the most politically-involved Pope since the dissolution of the Papal States, but only insofar that he threw out his back to keep Germany from electing the Nazi Party. "Mit brennender Sorge" is the first Papal encyclical to have been promulgated to specifically be preached in German Catholic churches to oppose the Nazi Party. Pacelli, as one of Pius XI's agents, was similarly anti-Nazi; he is known to have repeatedly criticized Hitler and supported the anti-Nazi Catholic Bishops in their social and political opposition to the Nazi Party.

 

[innonimatu]

Pacelli, as one of Pius XI's agents, was similarly anti-Nazi; he is known to have repeatedly criticized Hitler and supported the anti-Nazi Catholic Bishops in their social and political opposition to the Nazi Party.

You're really sure you want discuss his role in german politics in the period 1931-33? The nazis wouldn't have gotten his Enabling Act through without Pacelli ordering the centre party to fold. And he couldn't even excuse himself with ignorance, because Mussolini had pulled a similar trick to bury democracy in Italy with the Acerbo Law years before. In each case they needed the appearance of consent to disband the political parties and get rid of parliament. Had the PP in Italy resisted the king and army would have been compelled to intervene to kick Mussolini from power. Same for the president and army in Germany.

 

[Glassfan]

...Your making the assumption that government(s) were capable of dealing effectively with it. I'd argue that they weren't.

A good point. Although I wasn't, in fact, making that assumption, and my readings on the topic have led me to believe that the complexities of the world economy were already in advance of government's capabilities or awareness (ergo, failure to deal...).

In the German Reparations crisis, for instance, the situation was mishandled by Secretaries of State/Foreign Ministers rather than the proper sphere of Secretaries of Treasury/Exchequer/Finance Ministers (who then lacked adequate powers or understanding anyway). And when President Hoover suggested a years' debt/loan forgiveness, the English and French declined. A few years latter, the English and French in turn suggested a similar forgiveness scheme but President Roosevelt declined.

 

[swimandciv]

The Great Crash, 1929 by John Kenneth Galbraith describes a lot of the causes of the crash.

 

[Antilogic]

The Ascent of Money by Niall Ferguson may be an interesting read. If you skip the parts where he attempts to write about history and focus instead on the parts about economics.

That book had a few problems from what I recall; I think the quality of Ferguson's writing has been on the decline.

...and as I scrolled down I see Masada already urged you away from the book and gave the authors I was going to post. Never mind. Pay attention to that guy.

If you are looking at monetarism, the earlier the work the better. Early monetarist work is largely incorporated into modern mainstream economic thought, while later work has become, well, a subject for the Tavern.

 

[Bowsling]

Yes, the history in the book is a train wreck. I assumed, however, that the parts about economics, especially the current financial crisis, were good. Apparently I was mistaken.

 

[Lord Baal]

Yes, the history in the book is a train wreck. I assumed, however, that the parts about economics, especially the current financial crisis, were good. Apparently I was mistaken.

Why would you assume that? Ferguson isn't an economist. He's actually an historian, so at a casual glance one would assume his history would be the more accurate portion of such a book (that assumption would be wrong, but hey, that's Ferguson for you).

 

[Bowsling]

Well, I couldn't tell that his economics were bad, but I knew his history was, so I thought he was an economist. Teaches me to skip the bit about the author's credentials.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why would you assume that? Ferguson isn't an economist. He's actually an historian, so at a casual glance one would assume his history would be the more accurate portion of such a book (that assumption would be wrong, but hey, that's Ferguson for you).

Well, technically he's a pop-history writer and talking head who used to be a historian.