An interesting Jeopardy Like Question

I have been fascinated the last few years with shouts of "unprecedented", "never seen before",  "things are different!"
I never gave full attention in school, but most students remember the answer to "why do we have to learn history?" So you can learn from it and hopefully avoid the same mistakes.  It seems that those in the position to do the most either ignore the lessons of history or are ignorant of them.  So check out the following Jeopardy style answer:

    He made promises to voters of new prosperity. He was a substantial victor in an election with high voter turnout. It was universally believed he would work wonders, a sort of superman, no problem beyond his capacity.

When he took over the presidency, the Wall Street debacle was already whirring. He could have allowed the artificially low interest rates to rise to their natural level, but government-induced cheap credit was the bedrock of policy. He could let the stock and real estate market liquidate and purge the economy. But that would have meant lower wages and higher unemployment. He decided he would not follow the advice of the liquidationists. He therefore agreed to take on the business cycle deleveraging and stamp it flat with all the resources of the government. He said that the times were unprecedented and required pioneering a new field. He resumed credit inflation with the Federal Reserve adding large amounts of credit. He held conferences with industrial leaders urging to keep employment and wages steady. The labor unions supported and praised this policy. Prominent economists praised his moves and called federal credit expansion the right solution. He increased government spending. He deliberately ran up huge deficits, increasing the government's share of GNP. This was the largest-ever increase in government spending, most of which was accounted for by transfer-payments. He tried to channel government money through the banks and used government cash to try and reflate the economy. He started programs of government intervention to target money to special interests.

When intervention failed to produce the desired results, he doubled and redoubled his efforts. He increased the cash and credit available to his intervention programs. He ignored or bullied Congress, running the administration like a dictator. By this point, however, he had lost control of Congress, which was horrified by the deficit and insisted that the budget had to be brought into balance. The push in Congress was to increase taxes, with the rate on high incomes jumping.

Mostly neutered by Congress, the President still had his interventionist rhetoric and continued louder than ever. He announced if they did nothing it would be utter ruin.

His rhetoric persuaded the financial community that he was pro-labor and anti-business, furthering the deflationary pressures on the economy. This was reinforced by his incessant attacks on the stock exchanges, which he regarded as parasitical. His demand to regulate and investigate Wall Street kept stocks depressed and discouraged private investors. His policy of public investments prevented necessary liquidations. The businesses he hoped to save either went bankrupt in the end or were highly indebted.  He undermined property rights and contract laws by weakening the bankruptcy laws and encouraging moratoriums on debt sales and foreclosures. This impeded the ability of banks to maintain confidence and clean up their balance sheets. After pushing federal credit into the banks he bullied them to increase loans and inflate the economy, a move which would increase the precariousness of the bank's positions.

The Presidents interventionist policies had prolonged the downturn, but it did not stop the unemployment number from increasing. The young artists and academics were empowered to criticize and be hostile towards the structural ideas of free markets, capitalism, individualism, independence, and personal responsibility. They were exhilarated at the unexpected collapse of the “gigantic fraud.” And they instinctively began to support public planning, leaving behind a “period of extreme individualism.” Capitalists who disagreed “would be treated like any maverick... roped and branded and made to run with the herd.” The country could no longer afford “irresponsible, ill-informed, stubborn, and uncooperative individualism.”

Who was it?

Herbert Hoover  31st President 1929-1933

Does the above parallel what has happened recently? Definitely has similarities. Here is what happened (possibly happens) next.

A large blow to the economy came when Europe's economy began to slow. Large European debt had been accumulated and after a leading European bank collapsed the European dominoes began to topple. A U.S. Plan to intervene came too late and other European banks began to shut. Debt repudiation ensued and rampant currency devaluation began. European markets became detached from the U.S and foreigners began withdrawing their U.S. Holdings from U.S. Banks. U.S. Depositors followed suit and a classic bank run brought the system to a standstill.

Landlords had difficulties collecting rent and so could not always pay taxes. Municipal revenues collapsed, hampering the welfare programs and municipal services. Schools were shut, teachers laid off and colleges went bankrupt and shutdown.

Basically, the Great Depression happened. Can we avoid it? I don't know. But I can at least prepare for what I know has happened before, now that I know some more history.