You need to do better than that link -- Several history classes I have had all discussed the dust bowl as an ecological catastrophe and a famine. I think that's a broadly accepted and uncontroversial definition.
Tge link you provided discusses raising crop prices and, at least the on the first page, doesn't refute the dust bowl.
The reason that prices needed to be raised was because the dust bowl had cause a famine and the collapse of food prices. Even where crops had been successful, the prices were too low for farmers to make a profit so they destroyed their crops rather than sending them to market. It was largely a failure of unrestricted free markets.
Again, all this is a fairly uncontroversial interpretation.
> The Grapes of Wrath is a novel.
Yes, a novel about the dust bowl and it's consequences.
Think about what low crop prices means. It means FOOD IS CHEAP. That's utterly inconsistent with famine. And Roosevelt destroying zillions of pigs and letting their carcasses rot in ditches is famine? It beggars belief.
> It was largely a failure of unrestricted free markets.
The dust bowl was caused by unsustainable farming practices, which were changed as a result. The Depression was caused by the Fed (read "Monetary History of the United States" by Milton Friedman. Not a novelist.)
> Yes, a novel about the dust bowl and it's consequences.
Novels are fictional, and historical proof of nothing at all. Steinbeck was not a historian, and was known to exaggerate for dramatic effect. There are plenty of history books on the Depression written by professional historians. Any credible claims have no reason to rely on fiction.
P.S. My dad went to public school in Long Beach in the Depression. He sat next to Oakies. They weren't starving. Times were hard, yes. But it wasn't famine.
Your original comment was how free markets, seemingly alone, had fixed hunger in America. The response was: "American famines existed long after the year 1800. You ever heard of the Dust Bowl? The Grapes of Wrath?"
During the great Depression, food was, in general, both cheap and largely unavailable. The prices that farmers could get for many of their crops had fallen to a level that the cost of getting their crops to market would result in them losing money. So they destroyed a lot of their crops. Again, this is some basic American history, easily found in text books for High School and college classes. Essentially, it was an economic problem. There was physical food and crops. However, the price farmers could get for food had fallen to below the level that they could profit from it. The government had decided to implement price supports. It might be hard to believe, but that's what happened.
People here at HN know what novels and history books -- there is no need to insult anyone by explaining it. The book, Grapes of Wrath, was clearly brought up to illustrate a point, not as a proof.
I'm willing to go along with characterizing The Dust Bowl as a time of famine in America, and one that happened after your claim, that free markets eliminated the specter of famine in the US.
Here's a cite for you: "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes. A history of the Depression, it does not mention "famine".
If you've got a cite from a real history book there was famine in the US in the 1930's, feel free to post it.
P.S. I have a copy of "AP United States History" from the "Research & Education Association, 639 pages. It has no mention of famine during the Dust Bowl.
”How can you reconcile cheap food being unavailable food? Doesn't make any sense"
I've given a brief explanation twice already. If it doesn't even make sense to you then, honestly, don't know what to say further.
As to the famine point, lets try google... The first result is as follows, from Wikipedia: ”The abandonment of homesteads and financial ruin resulting from catastrophic topsoil loss led to widespread hunger and poverty". You clearly disagree that it qualifies as famine.
This isn't a formal historical discussion, and Im not a historian. The fact of widespread hunger and poverty isn't in dispute by any reputable historian and I'm honestly not interested in debating minutia.
Hunger, yes, famine, no. There's a huge difference in degree. I know it's popular these days to use extreme words trying to make a point, but it isn't acceptable in a serious discussion. Wikipedia did not say "famine".
> I've given a brief explanation twice already.
Sorry, it makes no sense. What makes food cheap is abundance, not scarcity. Do you really think that if the country was gripped by famine, that FDR would have gotten away with slaughtering millions of pigs and leaving the meat to rot?
You used the word famine earlier in this tiresome little thread.
WalterBright: "The US was the first country to eliminate the specter of famine around 1800. Thanks to free markets."
It's delusional to argue that The Dust Bowl was a time of cheap and abundant food. As far as I can tell, that's your claim, but I'm not interested in discussing this further with you.
First google search result for dust bowl famine. Government websites explicitly mention “famine”. Is the Library of Congress a good enough source for you?
