Of course, we had our own brilliant ideas, like destroying perfectly good automobiles (does anybody even remember Cash for Clunkers?) and putting a price floor above the market wage of a third of our young people in a deflationary labor market.
An aside: The Agricultural Adjustment Act led to Wickard v Filburn - the beginning of the end of the commerce clause as a constraint on government interference. Here is the outline from Wikipedia:
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption in Ohio. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it......The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
.....soooooo, it is so important to curtail production when people are out of work and to raise the price of wheat while people are starving that even subsistence farmers should have to destroy their wheat so that they have to buy more chicken feed....Yes, we turned the commerce clause on its head for that. Who could fault the logic, really?
David has a follow up post on the topic, with a famous quote from The Grapes of Wrath. This passage is apparently usually interpreted as an indictment of capitalism, as if this turn of events was an inevitable, tragic consequence of agri-markets, with FDR the hero for playing tough with the culprits. This is a very sad story on many levels.