John C. Wright ([info]johncwright) wrote,
@ 2008-04-08 12:01:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Econ 101: Depression as a result of Intervention
A reader writes in and asks:

"Am I wrong in saying that FDR's intervention in the economy got us out of the Depression?"

Dead wrong; the exact opposite is true. Depressions are caused by state interference in the credit cycle. The previous administrations caused the Depression, and FDR aggravated it tenfold or a hundredfold.

Forgive me if i simplify a nuanced problem, but in broad outline, but here is how it goes: Depression are created when some prince or parliament or Fearless Leader wishes to encourage a temporary boom, and to do so he rules that banks cannot charge an interest rate above the Leader's decreed rate. The boom is like a spending spree with your credit card. You are dancing in free money until the bill comes due. Voters love low interest rates. 

 

Like every other scarce good, the interest rate in an unhindered market is governed by the law of supply and demand. When people have a large amount of fluid currency to spend and lend, they put it in banks, the banks have a lot of it, and, in order to under-bid other banks, they charge less interest to Investors.

In an unhindered market, then, the Investor borrow money from a bank, build factories and hire worker and make widgets. They put the widgets up for sale. The people have a large amount of fluid currency to spend and lend, and so they can buy the widgets. The Investor makes his money back, he pays the workers their wages, he repays the loan, and so when the people go back to the bank to get their money, there it is.

In a distorted market, the Fearless Leader's well-intentioned meddling causes malinvestment. The people do not have much money to spend and lend. They put less money in the bank. When Investors come to borrow money, they bid against each other, and this drives up the interest rate, the price of borrowing money, so that only the Investor with the best prospects for repaying the loan can wisely afford to risk taking out a loan at a high credit rate. Other investors hold their money, or invest in safe projects. Few factories or none are built; not many widgets are made; but that is okay, because the people do not have much spare money to lend and spend to buy the widgets.

Then along comes the Fearless Leader on his White Horse. The Leader on the White Horse threatens the banks with the sword, telling them that they cannot charge an interest rate above some arbitrary rate.

The businessmen and investors now can borrow money more cheaply than the natural rate of interest. Now, the people have little money to lend and spend, by hypothesis, for otherwise the interest rate would be low. The interest rate is high, but the Fearless Leader lowers it. This means that the investors cannot bid against each other to secure the loans they want and need. An investor with a risky project, if he gets his foot in the bank door first, take out the loan at the lower-than-natural rate of interest, and the safer investor is not in a position to offer to pay more and out-bid him, because his action has been declared illegal by the Fearless Leader.

Lo and behold, a season of what looks like boom appears. The risky investors build factories and hire workers with the loan money. Happy days are here again, and flapper dance on the tops of model-T Fords, drinking wine from slippers. But remember, by hypothesis, this is a season where the people have relatively little fluid cash to lend and spend. The risky investor puts his widgets for sale on the market, but the bidding is sluggish. The price drops, and the widgets cannot be sold. Remember, again, that by hypothesis, this is a riskier venture than the safe investment. So the factory does not make its money back; the risky investor declares bankruptcy, and cannot pay his wage-earners, and he cannot pay back the bank.

The wage-earners are out of a job at that factory, and when they go to the bank to look at their savings, lo and behold, that is the exact same capital the bank lent to the risky investor.

Now, even if the risky investor knows that the interest rate is artificially low, because some other risky investor with an even less-likely project will cut ahead of him in line and take the loans at the low rate if he does not, even if an investor knows that a bust is coming, he is put in a position where it is economically wise, in the short term, to borrow the money and make the bad investment any way.

The symptom of a depression is the universality of the malinvestments. Not just one or two bad stocks drop on Wall Street, but almost all the stocks. Not just one or two foolish banks make bad loans and go bankrupt, but almost all the banks. Not just one or two workingmen find their jobs dried up, but thousand and tens of thousands.

A universal effect argues a universal cause. No one business, no one bank, has so much influence over the market that merely one bad investment or a string of bad investments can create a depression. A depression is caused by widespread, that is by SYSTEMATIC, mal-investment.

There are other indirect ways the government can interfere with the natural interest rate, aside from the Fearless Leader on a White Horse making a decree. The Federal Reserve Board is a permanent body whose business it is to interfere with the credit cycle, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is something that encourages bad investments by underwriting inefficient or risk-taking banks. The taxpayer underwrites the FDIC ultimately.

The way to get out of a depression is by liquidated bad investments and investing in good, low-risk businesses. This requires firing workers from the bad companies and having the low-risk companies hire them. This works best in an environment of low taxes and stable laws. Uncertainty about the laws causes investors to be more cautious than otherwise.

What FDR did was

(1) Discourage businesses from firing workers. 'Share the work' where two or three idle men did one man's job, became the order of the day.

(2) Raised taxes to unprecedented levels.

(3)  Seize the gold supplies from the people and inflate the currency.

Inflating currency robs creditors and gives value to debtors. Imagine if Wimpy borrowed a dollar from you to buy a hamburger on Monday, promising to pay you back on Wednesday. On Tuesday, Fearless Leader prints up one hundred one dollar bills and floods them into the market. Your dollar is now worth fifty cents; a hamburger now costs two dollars. Wimpy pays you back a dollar bill, but in reality he borrowed a hamburger from you and paid you back half a hamburger. The difference in value, half a burger, just went from you to him. This is what is known as Keynesian economics: basically Keynes persuaded FDR to screw the workingman, on the theory that they would not notice the value of their burger-buying dollar was dropping.

In the long run, inflationary policies lead to capital decumulation, which interferes with the credit cycle in its own way. But Keynes responded to this objection by the quip that we should not worry about the long run, "because in the long run, we are all dead."

A more feckless and irresponsible attitude toward matters of state cannot be imagined. Mr. Keynes is indeed dead, but we now live with an inflation rate as a permanent part of our economy, a permanent drain. I am suffering from the short-sighted folly of Keynes, and I am not dead.

FDR not only did NOT solve the Depression, his government's reckless and abominable policies turned a minor market down-turn into a decades-long permanent feature of American life. If there is a Dante's Inferno reserved just for people who sin against the laws of economics, FDR is buried upside-down in it, with his feet on fire.

What about the war?

There are those who say that World War Two solved the Depression. Humbug.

I offer you the following thought experiment: the next time there is a recession, have the government seize control of the same percentage of factories that in WWII were used to make ordinance. Take all the ordinance out into a field somewhere, and blow them up. Then draft as many able-bodied young men out of the work force as were drafted during WWII. Kill and maim the appropriate percentage of workers as battlefield casualties killed and maimed. Keep these workers fed at taxpayers expense with crapped K-rations, under the miserable conditions of trench warfare for four to five years.  Have your overseas trade partners bombed and blitzed, and reduce their cities to rubble, so that they have no good to trade, and nothing to buy anything with. The have the tax-payer bear the massive expense of the Marshall Plan.

Better yet, to make the thought-experiment simpler, merely add up the dollar value of the workers taken out of the market place to go soldier, the dollar value of the bombed cities in Europe, the dollar value of the loss to the civilian of gas rationing, and the cessation of all civilian industry to wartime purposes. Let us say this dollar value is, say, one third to one half of GDP.

But all that money into a big pit in the Mojave Desert, and ignite an atom bomb over it, reducing the money to ash, and making the ash radioactive. There. That is the economic recovery effect of World War Two on the American Economy.




(Post a new comment)


[info]fpb
2008-04-08 04:50 pm UTC (link)
Beware of orthodoxies.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose.
[info]johncwright
2008-04-08 06:17 pm UTC (link)
The Austrian economic school theory of the credit cycle is about as heterodox, in academic circles, as it is possible to me, and still be called economics.

No, sir, Keynes is orthodox. Hayek and van Mises are heterodox.

Fortunately, in the sciences, the truth-value of an idea is the final arbiter, not whether it conforms or departs from received dogma.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]fpb, 2008-04-08 06:40 pm UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]dirigibletrance, 2008-04-08 10:02 pm UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]mrmandias, 2008-04-08 10:33 pm UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]dustthouart, 2008-04-09 03:37 am UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]mrmandias, 2008-04-09 02:13 pm UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]mrmandias, 2008-04-09 02:16 pm UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]headnoises, 2008-04-09 02:29 am UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]johncwright, 2008-04-08 10:13 pm UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]saintjoi, 2008-04-08 06:41 pm UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]vitruvian23, 2008-04-08 08:18 pm UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]johncwright, 2008-04-08 09:54 pm UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]axiem, 2008-04-08 10:37 pm UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]johncwright, 2008-04-09 01:53 am UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]axiem, 2008-04-09 02:05 am UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]vitruvian23, 2008-04-08 11:45 pm UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]johncwright, 2008-04-09 01:57 am UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]mentalguy, 2008-04-09 02:18 am UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]jordan179, 2008-04-09 08:33 am UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]vitruvian23, 2008-04-09 10:45 am UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]jordan179, 2008-04-09 04:36 pm UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]vitruvian23, 2008-04-09 10:36 am UTC

[info]necoras
2008-04-08 04:59 pm UTC (link)
But all that money into a big pit in the Mojave Desert, and ignite an atom bomb over it, reducing the money to ash, and making the ash radioactive. There. That is the economic recovery effect of World War Two on the American Economy.

Actually, with a fiat currency that isn't such a bad idea...

On a sadder note, you mention one of the critical parts of the credit cycle is selling widgets. Unfortunately the US doesn't know how to make widgets any more. No, we have a 'service economy' where I'll tie your shoes if you'll polish mine, but nobody actually knows how to make any shoes. America has turned into Douglass Adams' Second Ark. We're a nation of hairdressers and telephone cleaners. But don't worry, China knows how to make widgets. The communists will solve all of our economic problems. Huh? Wait-a-minute...

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]dirigibletrance
2008-04-08 10:09 pm UTC (link)
The communists aren't even communist anymore, though. How do you think they got so rich?

No, the Chinese are Capitalists now. They're just capitalists with a red flag and a dictatorial elite, that's all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]dirigibletrance, 2008-04-08 10:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]necoras, 2008-04-09 02:04 pm UTC

[info]b0rg
2008-04-08 05:31 pm UTC (link)
I think it's worth mentioning that wikipedia article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_funds_rate

gives a good view on the reasons why the systems was created in the first place.

(Reply to this)

Initial Causes of the Great Depression
[info]jordan179
2008-04-08 05:45 pm UTC (link)
Forgive me if i simplify a nuanced problem, but in broad outline, but here is how it goes: Depression are created when some prince or parliament or Fearless Leader wishes to encourage a temporary boom, and to do so he rules that banks cannot charge an interest rate above the Leader's decreed rate. The boom is like a spending spree with your credit card. You are dancing in free money until the bill comes due. Voters love low interest rates.

What was specifically done was a bit subtler than this, but amounted to the same thing. Business growth had seemingly been "impeded" by the fact that banks could fail, hence banks were unwilling to make risky loans, hence businesses could not always raise the amount of capital desired (this also applied to the stock market because banks would not normally loan money for pure speculation).

So, in their wisdom, our Fearless Leaders (specifically Nelson Aldrich, to my shame a Republican) established the Federal Reserve, in 1913. The Federal Reserve would back up banks in danger of collapsing so that banks wouldn't collapse any more. And plenty of nice loans would be available to businessmen needing more capital, because the banks would no longer be worried about failing.

Interestingly, Nelson Aldrich was a close ally of J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller -- people who, I'm sure coincidentally, could use ready access to larger amounts of capital to expand their business operations. But I digress.

Come the 1920's. Stocks soared in the post Great War boom, but it was all being supported by a credit structure that assumed German reparations payments and was loaning Germany the money to make the payments. There was thus a basic weakness in the underpinning of that boom, but weaknesses like that take a while to work their way through the system.

Come the late 1920's. The boom was now running so high that banks began to consider loans to speculators for the explicit purpose of buying more stocks to be safe deals. It is possible that they might have done so anyway, but what is certain is that the knowledge that, if they got into trouble the Federal Reserve would back them up. The money kept rolling in to pump up the speculative bubble.

Come late October, 1929. The bubble burst, and the banks suddenly found themselves having to write off a lot of bad loans. Such a large number of bad loans, in fact, that many of the banks faced bankruptcy unless the Federal Reserve bailed them out.

Surprise! The volume of bad debt was so vast that the Fed didn't have enough reserves to bail out all the banks. Many of the banks failed, and those failures in turn triggered other bank failures overseas. The result, from 1929-31, was the cascade of banking collapses that made credit, even to sound businesses, difficult to obtain, threw tens of millions out of work worldwide, and became the Great Depression.

President Herbert Hoover rightly bears the blame for turning the Crash into the Depression. He undertook various interventionist measures which had the effect of making both the crash worse and its spread abroad more severe and inevitable. In particular, his signature of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act on June 17th, 1930, started a tariff war which strangled America's international trade and helped cause the collapse of many firms which were in that trade.

The voters thus turned the Republicans out of office in 1932, and the Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated in March 1933. It would now be his turn to screw things up.

(Reply to this)


[info]iceberg18
2008-04-08 06:04 pm UTC (link)
JCW, as usual you tackle an unpopular topic with gusto; unpopular only in the sense that many people hold comfortable fables dear and near, and therefore aren't receptive to messages that threatens to alter their weltanschauung.

One such topic is the economy, and I must say you made a valiant attempt to paint a picture in a way accessible to the non-economically minded crowd. That said, I do have some quibbles with the reality you attempt to accurately portray, but none the less I do commend your dissemination of the uncomfortable truth behind the impenetrable morass we call the 'Business Cycle'.

First things first, I presume you were speaking of the U.S. government's monetary policy. As such, the interest rate you probably speak of is the Federal Funds Rate, the rate that the banks lend each other, usually for overnight deposits to maintain their deposits at the Federal Reserve. When this rate is altered, it leads to a change in what is called the Prime Rate, the rate that 75% of the 30 major banks have adopted for themselves, which is the rate they will typically charge when lending to their customers.

Note that in this process, no dictator, president or king said "this will be the maximum rate at which you lend to everyone". The Fed's fiat only then sets the rate by which banks will attempt to compete for loans, but that in itself does not forestall a bank from charging less or more than the prime rate.

I also encourage you and others to read "The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle and Other Essays" which can be read as an ebook for free, or purchased here to gain a finer appreciation of what goes on in the economy when the fiat interest rate diverges from the natural rate of interest (which is hence unknowable in an environment where there is government intervention of monetary policy.)



(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]necoras
2008-04-08 06:13 pm UTC (link)
The problem with arguing that the Fed doesn't set the interest rate is the question of why I would take out a loan at a rate higher than what the Fed is offering me? It's bad buisness to take out a 5% loan from Bank A when the Government will give me a loan at 3% (or whatever the Fed rate is at today). Thus, interest rates are set unnaturally low.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]iceberg18, 2008-04-08 06:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]necoras, 2008-04-08 07:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]iceberg18, 2008-04-08 07:56 pm UTC

[info]johncwright
2008-04-08 06:23 pm UTC (link)
Surely you notice that what I describe here is the Austrian Theory, nothing more. The Fearless Leader in my little parable is the Fed, which interferes in the natural interest rate in a fashion more indirect than I have said, but, nonetheless, interferes for the reasons I've said and with the effects I've said.

The Great Depression was a world-wide phenomenon. The Fearless Leaders in a number of countries interfered in a number of ways, including Wiemar inflation of the Mark to demonetize the war-debt, and the British renunciation of the Gold Standard. The net effect was an "easy credit" policy, with the effects I here describe.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]iceberg18, 2008-04-08 07:27 pm UTC
FDR, the Depression and World War II
[info]jordan179
2008-04-08 06:17 pm UTC (link)
Your analysis of just how FDR screwed things up is comprehensive enough that the only thing I will add was that his insane agricultural policies, which actually forced farmers and ranchers to DESTROY food at a time when the poor were STARVING, may qualify as one of the most foolish ones ever engaged in by a liberal democracy that was still nominally capitalist.

FDR's fundamental problem was that he really did not grasp economics -- he was a rich kid who always thought of money as "something you inherit" and had no idea how the economy worked in any terms other than handing his money over to investment managers. He appointed a "Brain Trust" of leading intellectuals to advise him what to do: since socialism was fashionable at the time, they proposed socialist solutions; hence the economy was unable to completely recover in the 1930's. All the socialist solutions had in common the delusion that the economy was suffering from overproduction owing to the perfection of technology, and consequently focused on reducing production rather than freeing up the system of the clogs that Aldrich and Hoover had already placed on it.

Something like this was perhaps politically inevitable in a recession, but FDR and his Brain Trust were more energetic about it than they had to be. If Reagan had done the same thing in 1987, the 1990's would have been a Second Great Depression rather than a period of growth.

Come World War II, and the Depression ended. But not because war is good for an economy. War is terrible for an economy. However, war can be very good for some parts of an economy, especially when that economy has been shackled by the assumption that "overproduction" was the problem.

To begin with, the first effect of the war (as early as 1940) was that the US economy suddenly enjoyed an immense demand for war materials. The gargantuan potlatch of mutual destruction in Europe, which we were not yet engaged in ourselves, meant that foreigners needed to buy replacement materials from America. Factories went into full production; unemployment dramatically dropped. In 1940, our recovery was being powered by a conflagration consuming the accumulated wealth of the British and French Empires (and to some extent, of the German and Japanese Empires as well). This was clearly destructive to the global economy AS A WHOLE, but not yet to our segment of that global economy.

Then, in 1942, we drafted (and otherwise recruited) millions of working-age American men into the Armed Forces. Their places were taken, largely, by those who were previously only un- or semi-employable: women and members of various disfavored ethnic minorities.

Now, those servicemen were making an extreme personal sacrifice. Not only were they risking death or maiming, but they were taking this dangerous job at wages for which they would not have taken equivalently dangerous civilian jobs; furthermore, their freedom was greatly restricted in ways far beyond anything to which anyone would have subjected themselves in civilian life.

In the actual war, America joined the potlatch. This meant that we were spending money for materials which were not enriching our economy (though we did recover some of the cost later by reselling surviving equipment to postwar allies); however, the increased national productivity resulting from dropping the shackles on agriculture and industry more than made up for these losses.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: FDR, the Depression and World War II
[info]dirigibletrance
2008-04-08 10:06 pm UTC (link)
"Your analysis of just how FDR screwed things up is comprehensive enough that the only thing I will add was that his insane agricultural policies, which actually forced farmers and ranchers to DESTROY food at a time when the poor were STARVING, may qualify as one of the most foolish ones ever engaged in by a liberal democracy that was still nominally capitalist. "

Which we still do. Only today the poor are starving in other countries. The government pays farmers millions of dollars every year to burn excess crops, to keep the supply down, so the demand will stay up, so they can stay in business.

I'm sure that there's valid, real economic reasons for doing so, it's how the math works, etc.

But still. The absurdity of it. There are people in Africa starving to death. We burn excess food to keep the prices up.

Surely there's a better way to do things.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: FDR, the Depression and World War II - [info]johncwright, 2008-04-08 10:17 pm UTC
Re: FDR, the Depression and World War II - [info]necoras, 2008-04-09 02:10 pm UTC
Re: FDR, the Depression and World War II - [info]dirigibletrance, 2008-04-09 05:45 pm UTC
Re: FDR, the Depression and World War II - [info]necoras, 2008-04-09 09:16 pm UTC
Re: FDR, the Depression and World War II - [info]ladyhobbit, 2008-04-09 12:49 am UTC
Re: FDR, the Depression and World War II - [info]jordan179, 2008-04-09 02:45 am UTC
Re: FDR, the Depression and World War II - [info]naughtjennifer, 2008-04-09 03:23 pm UTC
Re: FDR, the Depression and World War II - [info]noahdoyle, 2008-04-09 04:52 pm UTC
Feeling Depressed?
[info]m_francis
2008-04-08 06:17 pm UTC (link)
In fairness to FDR, most of the mistakes had already been made. The Federal Reserve had never faced a Bank Panic before and had no idea what to do. They responded to the market crash by assuming that the cause had been Easy Credit with which to buy stocks on margin. So their answer was to ratchet up the interest rate. This made it harder to buy stocks on the margin. It also made it harder for farmers to borrow money for spring planting, for small businesses to borrow on a line of credit, and so on. Further, it failed to act as lender-of-last-resort to provide liquidity for banks hard pressed on their reserves by runs. A bank does not keep "in house" all the money that has been deposited. (It goes out as loans.) Normally, it is unlikely that all depositors would withdraw all their money all at once, so they only need to keep a reserve of cash-in-hand to cover that. This doesn't work during a bank run when all the depositors try to withdraw all their money all at once. See Jimmy Stewart in It's a Wonderful Life.

The Great Depression really began in 1933 as a result of three bank crises that the Fed exacerbated: fall of 1930, spring of 1931, and Jan of 1933; so it was mostly a done deal by the time FDR took office. His flailing - Hoover had tried most of it already - did not cause the Depression, although it may arguably have aggravated it. On 4 March 1933, the banking system closed for a Bank Holiday - meaning depositors could not get their money. This was apparently based on the supposition that the best response to a heart attack is to shut the heart off.

"When banks reopened in mid-March, 15,000 out of 25,000 commercial banks remained." [i.e., 40% of all banks had disappeared, taking with them one-third of the money supply.] "The result was ... a severe depression that dramatically altered the U.S. Constitution and the character of our government."

For a history based on Friedman's analysis, see http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3476271.html

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Feeling Depressed?
[info]iceberg18
2008-04-08 07:53 pm UTC (link)
Um, that's only because the Fed has been around since late 1912, foisted upon us during Christmas week when no one was looking.

Prior to the Fed, we've had several banking crises in the country, the first notably in 1819, in which thankfully the federal government didn't intervene, and we promptly forgot about later since it was over as quickly as it started. [By comparison, today we know how to stretch out a depression over a great number of years, paralyzing commerce and the economy in the process.]

Bank troubles flared up a number of times in the late 19th century leading up to a major panic in 1907, which led to the creation of the Fed to intervene and give us a scientific monetary system with stability metered out by the Fed's steamrollering of the economy.

That's their raison d'être anyway.

On the topic of banking, I would recommend reading Murray N. Rothbard's History of Money and Banking in the United States, and if you're willing to suffer further, read his Panic of 1819 Reactions and Policies.

On the topic of the great depression, read Rothbard's America's Great Depression.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

The BIG Hidden Cost of the War
[info]jordan179
2008-04-08 06:18 pm UTC (link)
There was, of course, a HUGE hidden cost to the war, in the form of lost human capital. Some 416 thousand died and about 700 thousand were seriously enough wounded to count as "casualties" (this means a level of injury far above what we normally think of as "getting hurt" in civilian life). The total future productivity of those 416 thousand was lost: as these were mostly people aged around 20, this productivity was still costing us as late as 1990. Some portion of the lifetime productivity of the 700 thousand wounded was lost, also to be charged as late as 1990. And, of course, the whole 16 million of them were engaged in -- and being fed, housed, and paid for -- economically unproductive labor during some portion of the period between 1942 and 1945.

The war did jolt us out of the rut that Hoover and FDR put us in, and as a result, the postwar recession was short and the postwar boom came soon, decisively ending the Depression.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: The BIG Hidden Cost of the War
[info]juliet_winters
2008-04-08 09:12 pm UTC (link)
However those few people who survived the War had the opportunity for good jobs and because of the G.I. Bill a large segment of the bright and ambitious but not wealthy were able to make it into brainier sections of productive industries that otherwise might have been beyond their reach.

Hat tip to my father, a farm boy who became a chemical engineer courtesy of the G.I. Bill...and his own talents.


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: The BIG Hidden Cost of the War - [info]johncwright, 2008-04-08 10:23 pm UTC
GI Bill - [info]oscillon, 2008-04-08 10:44 pm UTC
Re: GI Bill - [info]dirigibletrance, 2008-04-09 03:20 am UTC
Stop loss applies past IRR - [info]oscillon, 2008-04-12 12:08 am UTC
Re: Stop loss applies past IRR - [info]dirigibletrance, 2008-04-12 12:21 am UTC
Re: GI Bill - [info]dirigibletrance, 2008-04-09 03:24 am UTC
Re: The BIG Hidden Cost of the War - [info]mrmandias, 2008-04-08 11:11 pm UTC
Re: The BIG Hidden Cost of the War - [info]juliet_winters, 2008-04-08 11:19 pm UTC

[info]mrmandias
2008-04-08 09:38 pm UTC (link)
Depressions are caused by state interference in the credit cycle.

But you had crashes before the invention of the federal reserve. In fact, the mere notion of a credit cycle presupposes periodic crashes. What you could say, accurately I'm told, is that state interference in the credit cycle prolongs and worsens the depression.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]johncwright
2008-04-08 10:20 pm UTC (link)
I did not say that the Federal Reserve and only the Federal Reserve causes a Depression. Obviously, there was no such institution in other countries. What I said was interference in the credit cycle causes a Depression. There are wide variety of such schemes, all aimed at getting something for nothing, a period of prosperity without tying the value of the goods into the production of the goods. Inflation of the currency is another type of interference, for example.

A particular industry can suffer a boom or a bust if its captains invest unwisely.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]mrmandias, 2008-04-08 10:31 pm UTC

[info]baduin
2008-04-08 10:39 pm UTC (link)
For the orthodox way of solving crises, see the Great Hunger in Ireland. Government did nothing, and the market balanced itself. The demand for food fell to the level of existing supply. In lay terms, people died or emigrated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Hunger

But your description of the causes of crisis in 1929 is right, of course.

But why we discuss 1929? Even now, the Federal Reserve is preparing to nationalize American financial system. This seems a more interesting topic.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/31/cnfed131.xml
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a233faa2-f789-11dc-ac40-000077b07658.html
http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/setser
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

(Reply to this)


[info]axiem
2008-04-08 10:44 pm UTC (link)
A good analysis. It is also worth noting that people tend not to understand that markets inherently are "random"--that is, that sometimes they are up and sometimes they are down. There are fluctuations for a variety of reasons. A fluctuation down is not sufficient reason to get the government involved.

It seems, though, that the fundamental problem lies with how people perceive the government; if people realized that the Fearless Leader intervening would be bad, they would be far more likely to keep the Fearless Leader from intervening in the first place.

Or perhaps I put too much faith in what people can realize.

(Reply to this)

Yes, but...
[info]ehrhardtgc
2008-04-09 01:02 am UTC (link)
The "Easy Money" story of a government-inspired post-bubble recession is a common one, but it isn't the only one. As someone noticed, there were booms, bubbles, and busts before there was state-provided easy money (tulips, anyone?).

Bubbles are about expectations more than they are about the actual interest rate--if you're sure you can sell an asset for a higher enough price next year, you will accept a high interest rate and still borrow money. So you buy the asset, driving its price up, the next person sees this as confirmation that prices are upwards bound, and they'll pay even more for the same asset, and this goes around and around. This is the story behind the property bubble in Japan in the late 80s (that led to a 12 year depression), the tech bubble in the 1990s, and the current property bubble in the US. It isn't a function of government policy, it is a self-fulfilling expectation about what other investors are going to do. When expectations change (regardless of any change in underlying fundamentals), then the whole house of cards comes crashing down.

The Fed's existence and/or improper behavior in 1929 may have worsened the effects of the crash by creating the expectations that banks were safe, then refusing to print enough money to actually make them safe. That is why the Fed's first response after 9/11 was to say "the lending window is open and we will ensure liquidity for the market." The argument that the Fed caused the bubble/crash in the first place, however, is weak (even Milton Friedman didn't try to argue that, and he disliked the Fed as much as anyone).

At the very least, the Fearless Leader argument completely ignores the international context: a) the disaster of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs (and their international counterparts), b) the War Debt/Reparations problem, c) the way the old financial system (Gold Standard) was failing because individual countries were manipulating their currencies to export their problems (which is okay when one country does it, but not all at the same time), and d) all these were magnified because of how closely economies were being integrated. The Great Depression was what it was because it was a Global Depression.

If people like this sort of thing (and the Austrian take on it), you might take a look at a recent post on the Marginal Revolution blog that re-examines the empirical finding that Democratic president-elects are followed by booms and Republican president-elects are followed by busts (suggesting that is a function of monetary expectations rather than the VRWC)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Yes, but...
[info]johncwright
2008-04-09 02:14 am UTC (link)
To my knowledge, the speculators bubbles that were not aggravated by "easy credit" policies effected on the segment of the economy involved: a crash in the Dutch Tulip market did not throw half the Dutch out of work for years at a time. The malinvestment was quickly liquidated, and the market corrected. The malinvestment risk and cost fell on the heads of those who invested unwisely. However, when "easy credit" is adopted as government policy, the side-effects is to encourage speculator's bubbles or make them inevitable--in effect, the information normally carried by the pricing system is falsified.

You correctly point out various aggravating factor present in the great depression, such as high tariffs and German hyper-inflation. But the analysis I give above will serve to explain other boom-bust cycles that took place without these other factors being present.

As I said, I was simplifying a complex issue. I was only trying to show why I do not believe FDR and the New Deal "solved" the Great Depression. Nor am I blaming FDR for the Depression: Herbert Hoover's "Engineering solution" to the economy, and the shenanigans of the Bank of England bear the lion's share of the blame. The New Deal did make the Depression worse, though, much worse.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Yes, but... - [info]ndrosen, 2008-04-09 03:11 am UTC

[info]gryphmon
2008-04-09 01:41 am UTC (link)
So basically George W. Bush is the new FDR.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose.
[info]johncwright
2008-04-09 02:04 am UTC (link)
I am no fan of the economic policies of Mr. Bush. His protectionism, "No Child Left Behind", and increase of spending are not distinguishable from what a Democrat might have done. If anything, Mr. Clinton, who balanced the budget and pushed for NAFTA, was friendlier to free trade than Mr. Bush.

No, I am no fan of the Republican administrations and their economic policies. Does anyone remember the Nixon wage and price controls?

I am old fashioned enough to actually believe in a written Constitution. If ya'll really want a centralized state-run bank, like the Federal Reserve Board, then amend the Constitution according to lawful amendment process, and grant that power to the federal government. If not, the bureau is unconstitutional, and should be disbanded.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]necoras, 2008-04-09 02:18 pm UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]xander25, 2008-04-09 05:19 pm UTC
Re: Depends on what you call Orthodox, I suppose. - [info]dirigibletrance, 2008-04-09 05:55 pm UTC

[info]lubu
2008-04-09 05:14 pm UTC (link)
I was just discussing this with co-workers the other day. I completely agree with everything you have said. Thank you for saying it so succinctly.

(Reply to this)


[info]bibliophile112
2008-04-09 08:48 pm UTC (link)
I don't mean this the way it will sound, but do you have hard evidence of this? Are there studies you can site? You say I am wrong, by stating reasons, but the reason I hold the economic views I hold is that someone stated reasons and came to different conclusions. Obviously someone is right, and someone is not, but how can I come to a conclusion? Why are your unsubstaniated arguments right while other equaly unsubstaniated arguments are wrong? This is not philosophy we are debating, but history and economics. Anyone could claim that X was caused by Y doing Z, but here I need to see solid proof.

(Reply to this)


[info]pagadan
2008-04-09 09:27 pm UTC (link)
There has been an ongoing discussion in Alexiad (literary SF zine) about causes of the depression for some months with lots of theories; and I suspect there may have been more than one cause. (There's no way I can cover the discussions. Alexiad may be online.)

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…