My understanding is the MA was an intervention where no intervention was needed. Furthermore it seems that the intervention could even have slowed the revovery of Europe rather than saving it. The supporters of Kensian economics cite the MA as an example of their great theory in its full blossoming glory and yet the fact that the recuperation was already well underway without that intervention makes me wonder why the decision was taken. I understand that, human nature has us all wanting to be right. If a theory becomes popular, we all find ourselves rooting for it. The MA seems to be more than ontellectuals rooting for their school of thought however.
Would I be paranoid in imagining that it was all a well thought out plan rather than just faulty thinking on behalf of those who implemented the act? The MA was surely intervention, debt and inflation all rolled in to one big government expanding package. I wonder ir there is any documented evidence of vested interest. I can argue until Im blue in the mouth with the fans of the Marshall act but wont sway them with logic (in my experience) but a nice quote from one of their own proponents is great for frying their circuits. This I have been able to do in the past by quoting Hoover on his intervention before the new deL and Lincoln on his attitudes to blacks and the slave issue in general when government lovers tell me that the North were the good guys fighting for freedom of blacks and the south were clu clux clanners fighting to keep slaves.
.
