Statist Intervention Prolonged Depression

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

A_Wanderer

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
12,518
Location
The Wild West
A failure of capitalism?
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom
 
Whoa this thread was unduly ignored for obvious reasons.

This is a good article to add to the stack:

Capitalism and the Financial Crisis
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, November 05, 2008

There has always been contempt for economic liberty. Historically, our nation was an important, not complete, exception. It took the calamity of the Great Depression to bring about today's level of restrictions on economic liberty. Now we have another government-created calamity that has the prospect of moving us even further away from economic liberty with the news media and pundits creating the perception that the current crisis can be blamed on capitalism. We see comments such as those in the New York Times: "The United States has a culture that celebrates laissez-faire capitalism as the economic ideal. Or, "For 30 years, the nation's political system has been tilted in favor of business deregulation and against new rules." Another says, "Since 1997, Mr. Brown (the British Prime Minister) has been a powerful voice behind the Labor Party's embrace of an American-style economic philosophy that was light on regulation."

First, let's establish what laissez-faire capitalism is. Broadly defined, it is an economic system based on private ownership and control over of the means of production. Under laissez-faire capitalism, government activity is restricted to the protection of the individual's rights against fraud, theft and the initiation of physical force.

Professor George Reisman has written a very insightful article on his blog titled "The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Financial Crisis." You can decide whether we have in an unregulated laissez-faire economy. There are 15 cabinet departments, nine of which control various aspects of the U.S. economy. They are the Departments of: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Energy, Labor, Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. In addition, there is the alphabet soup cluster of federal agencies such as: the IRS, the FRB and FDIC, the EPA, FDA, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FTC, FCC, FERC, FEMA, FAA, CAA, INS, OHSA, CPSC, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, NIH, and NASA.

Here's my question to you: Can one be sane and at the same time hold that ours is an unregulated laissez-faire economy? Better yet, tell me what a businessman, or for that matter you, can do that does not involve some kind of government regulation. A businessman must seek government approval for the minutest detail of his operation or face the wrath of some government agency, whether it's at the federal, state or local level. Just about everything we buy or use has some kind of government dictate involved whether it's package labeling, how many gallons of water to flush toilets or what pharmaceuticals can be prescribed. You say, "Williams, there's a reason for this government control." Yes, there's a reason for everything but that does not change the fact that there is massive government control over our economy.

It is incorrect to say that laissez-faire or free markets are unregulated. There is ruthless regulation, but it's not by government. Take the mortgage industry. In the absence of government interference, it is unlikely that a lender would extend a mortgage to a person with a poor credit history, making no down payment, and providing no verifiable employment history. But under the pressure of the government's Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying up or guaranteeing such mortgages, a lender will.

When businesses make unwise decisions that lead to bankruptcy, their assets are sold off to someone else who might be able to put them to wiser use. Government bailouts give businesses a reprieve that the market wouldn't give them. Bailouts have at least two effects. They permit continued unwise use of resources and it creates what economists call moral hazard, the expectation of future bailouts and others hopping on the bailout wagon.

The blame for our current financial mess rests with government, with the major player being the Federal Reserve Board keeping interest rates artificially low and the congressional and White House market interference in the name of more home ownership. In the clamor for more regulation over our financial institutions, has anybody bothered to ask whether people in government know what they're doing?
 
Whoa this thread was unduly ignored for obvious reasons.

What are those obvious reasons

Weren't you the one that said something about how economist are only good at predicting what has already happened?

Yet now these TWO economist give their interpretation of what happened 70 years ago and it's suppose to be telling somehow?
 
Whoa this thread was unduly ignored for obvious reasons.

Actually, the reason I left it is because I have to pick my battles these days.

Anyway, what I was going to write is summed up as the fact that all the mainstream economists, including our Bush-appointed Federal Reserve chairman, strongly believe that the Great Depression was prolonged because of not enough intervention in the beginning.
 
Actually, the reason I left it is because I have to pick my battles these days.

Anyway, what I was going to write is summed up as the fact that all the mainstream economists, including our Bush-appointed Federal Reserve chairman, strongly believe that the Great Depression was prolonged because of not enough intervention in the beginning.

Please post your opinion and information. This is a debate that is actually the most paramount right now.
 
Appointed people are never independent.

Interestingly Bernanke was appointed a couple of years ago with notable expertise on the on the causes and effects of Great Depression policies.

A couple of years before that he is often quoted as having said that with the US dollar as the world reserve currency in a fiat system, all that is required to avoid deflation is a printing press to print more money to pump the system with liquidilty.

Which he's been doing at breakneck speed lately.

2 big problems with that -

Inflated money supply causes inflation.

What happens when the US dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency?
 
What happens when the US dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency?

What will replace the US dollar? The euro is not backed by any single government, and there may be some reluctance to use the yuan.
 
What will replace the US dollar? The euro is not backed by any single government, and there may be some reluctance to use the yuan.

No idea.

Could the finanical meltdown be a tipping point to greater political cooperation of the EU countries to back the Euro? I think that's quite possible.
 
Hmmm.

I liken economists and their theories to IT people and the Wizard of Oz. The average person really doesn't want to know what's going on behind the curtain, they just want the damn thing to work and the illusion of greatness.
 
Hmmm.

I liken economists and their theories to IT people and the Wizard of Oz. The average person really doesn't want to know what's going on behind the curtain, they just want the damn thing to work and the illusion of greatness.

Always remember that there are many economists with different points of view just like the political spectrum. Sometimes you have to learn some economics so you don't get fooled by them.

IT and the Wizard of Oz is very apt. They also need jobs so they will ignore their beliefs so they can get political jobs. Economists have to eat too.
 
Could the finanical meltdown be a tipping point to greater political cooperation of the EU countries to back the Euro? I think that's quite possible.

Actually the crisis has increased strains among EU countries, which is one reason the dollar is appreciating. Taxpayers are reluctant to bail out troubled banks in other countries.
 
True enough for now. At some point when the recession really takes hold, they may stop pointing fingers at each other and start pointing west.
 
True enough for now. At some point when the recession really takes hold, they may stop pointing fingers at each other and start pointing west.

They initially pointed west a bit last year when they took losses on US MBSs. However, the big EU banks themselves were reckless in lending to emerging markets (some of which are going bankrupt now), and built up huge leverage ratios. These leverage ratios are several times the GDP of their home countries, meaning the banks are to big to rescue as well as too big to fail. So they can no longer blame the US.
 
Right, their debt levels are their own doing. When political pressure starts coming from the general population though (rather than the current storm still affecting mainly the financial community) leaders won't be accepting responsibility, they'll find a convenient scapegoat.
 
Right, their debt levels are their own doing. When political pressure starts coming from the general population though (rather than the current storm still affecting mainly the financial community) leaders won't be accepting responsibility, they'll find a convenient scapegoat.

The general population won't buy a false scapegoat. Look at the current Iceland protests - they are against the Icelandic government and banks. They know they have only themselves to blame.
 
That's probably true. I still believe the pressure will likely force greater cooperation among the EU countries, not immediately of course but as the recession drags on with no end in sight.
 

Yeah but Keynesian economics failed in the 1970's because stagflation wasn't supposed to happen when priming the pump.

Keynesians ignore the role of savings in the economy. Low interest rates and priming the pump created an incentive for people to borrow lots because the interest rates are low. When people deleverage that's when a recession occurs.

Thanks for showing Krugman's article because he is one of the most influential Keynesians and it's important to get his view.
 
Krugman is a politicised economist.

He got some award recently, I can't understand why he merited it.

They should have given it to Taleb or Roubini.
 
He sure is politicized.

What has he been wrong about? I've actually asked that question of several people who are very strong critics of his. Nobody could find anything really substantial, so my quest continues.
 
He sure is politicized.

What has he been wrong about? I've actually asked that question of several people who are very strong critics of his. Nobody could find anything really substantial, so my quest continues.

The problem with Krugman is that he thinks low interest rates are the answer. Low interest rates have been used by Greenspan for over a decade and all it did was get people into huge debt. Savers get low rates so they invest in riskier investments to hold off the inflation (which leads to big losses on risky investments) that comes natural with low interest rates. Many people just don't bother saving. In Japan low interest rates pervaded for years and Japanese just invested elsewhere to get higher interest rates and the low interest rates didn't really stop the recession, but prolonged it. BTW most economists are Keynesians in practice and politicians will be getting advice from them which makes it even harder for politicians to know what to do.

What libertarians get is that when you have low interest rates for a long time a lot of crappy businesses that wouldn't exist do so because of cheap debt and labor starts working on products and services that people don't really want. This distorts the economy.

Krugman also likes the FDR make work projects but that is just the same as bailouts where companies that make products like (junky Ford cars) keep working making products nobody wants to buy. This also distorts the economy. Eventually when people elect conservatives (with a libertarian bent) because they are tired of sluggish growth and impediments to growth eg. more taxes and trade barriers, the shock of eliminating fluff jobs becomes even bigger and recession steeper to get people back on track with REAL jobs based products and services people REALLY want. It's unpopular but necessary. The more tinkering there is the more cleanup will be necessary. Who does the cleanup will be blamed for it politically because the population doesn't understand who's at fault and will never blame themselves.

People also disagree with Krugman because he assumes that government is the main reason for the recovery of the depression (due mainly from labor demand for WWII) and so they think government should be everywhere. Yet the Soviet Union showed that government is more inefficient than the private sector by its actual results. Also WWII is a life or death situation. When the war was over there were lots of children and demand for infrastructure like houses and trade barriers were relieved. It's always good to sell products to other countries than just relying on your own population. The reason for the recession of the 30's was the indebtedness and stock market gambling in the roaring 20's. The depression was exacerbated by trade barriers, farm drought, and increased taxes.

Ultimately when people get into so much debt and can't purchase anymore, those companies that create the supply find that they can't count on the consumer to keep spending so their supply is really "oversupply", hence a distortion of the market. Companies can't keep producing supply as if the escalating demand is forever. This has to be corrected by labor moving to other areas. This means unemployed people will have to use their savings or employment insurance benefits to wait out the cycle and those rich people who have savings need confidence in the system to start investing again to start the process again.

The best way to avoid all these problems is to do what politicians of all stripes avoid and that is to raise interest rates during a boom and lower them during a bust. This reduces the size of the boom (distortion and increasing indebtedness) and reduces the fall of the bust because people aren't so indebted and the correction happens faster and involves less people. Booms aren't really good. Booms cause the eventual bust. Politicians don't want to raise interest rates during a boom because of political fallout. Therefore expect these cycles to continue your entire existence and start saving money during a boom so you have a cushion during a bust. Eventually when your 65 hopefully you have been saving most of the time and you have enough for retirement so you have more than just your labor to sell or minimal government benefits.

That's why I harp on savings.:wink:

I recommend economics in one lesson by Henry Hazlitt and his philosophy book Foundations of Morality (because without morality and trust free markets don't thrive as well). Hazlitt writes in a manner that average people can understand.

Austrian Economics Literature :: Mises Institute

There's tons of free books here so you can absorb more. The left have people like Marx, Keynes, Galbraith for other points of view. Thomas Sowell is a newer economics writer from the right that can explain things for the averange non-economist in his economics books. If you get interested in economics from different points of view you will be free from relying on TV soundbites and know what's missing on economic news reports.

http://www.mises.org/books/critics.pdf

Here's a book that directly criticizes Keynesian economics from the libertarian point of view. Now Krugman is a Neo-Keynesian so I don't know what he takes from Keynes and adds, but I'm sure he has books you can read.

My other advice is that you do the reading and research yourself because most of the population won't be able to tell you which is better economics and will stick with very rudimentary and erroneous beliefs because reading is too much trouble for them. It's difficult to illustrate politics and economics from simple posts on U2 posting sites. You will need to know both points of view so when news shows up on the economy you will be independent minded and will understand what's happening.

My two cents:up:
 
T
My other advice is that you do the reading and research yourself because most of the population won't be able to tell you which is better economics and will stick with very rudimentary and erroneous beliefs because reading is too much trouble for them. It's difficult to illustrate politics and economics from simple posts on U2 posting sites. You will need to know both points of view so when news shows up on the economy you will be independent minded and will understand what's happening.

My two cents:up:

I get that you're being helpful, but you do have a tendency to patronize people. For example, here you have assumed that I haven't read Krugman's work or criticisms of him or that I need to be told how to educate myself to think critically. None of those things are true. The very basis of my profession is being able to give weight to both sides of a coin, even if you have to commit to one eventually.

My simple point was that I have yet to come across something substantive that he has advocated that I believe he's been dead wrong about. I also haven't managed to find one strong critics of his who has really had pressing issues with his economic ideas; they all seem to object to him on the basis of his social and political views, which he has made quite obvious.
 
It looks like China has opted for intervention - a $586 billion stimulus package. It's easier to do, of course, when you don't have a huge national debt. IMO markets will rally big tomorrow.

BEIJING – China unveiled a $586 billion stimulus package Sunday in its biggest move to inoculate the world's fourth-largest economy against the global financial crisis.

The Cabinet approved a plan to invest the money in infrastructure and social welfare by the end of 2010, a statement on the government's Web site said.

China announces $586 billion stimulus plan - Yahoo! News
 
Krugman also likes the FDR make work projects but that is just the same as bailouts where companies that make products like (junky Ford cars) keep working making products nobody wants to buy. This also distorts the economy. Eventually when people elect conservatives (with a libertarian bent) because they are tired of sluggish growth and impediments to growth eg. more taxes and trade barriers, the shock of eliminating fluff jobs becomes even bigger and recession steeper to get people back on track with REAL jobs based products and services people REALLY want. It's unpopular but necessary. The more tinkering there is the more cleanup will be necessary. Who does the cleanup will be blamed for it politically because the population doesn't understand who's at fault and will never blame themselves.

The "bailouts" vary widely in terms of return on investment. If Ford is given billions just to keep their assembly lines churning out big pickups that will go unsold, that is a waste. If they use the money to retool their plants in order to make the next generation of green vehicles (and r&d), that will produce a good return in the future. The same positive returns on investment exist for health and education spending. I think Obama will invest wisely in a new infrastructure, and this will create new industries with good long-term employment prospects.
 
I get that you're being helpful, but you do have a tendency to patronize people. For example, here you have assumed that I haven't read Krugman's work or criticisms of him or that I need to be told how to educate myself to think critically. None of those things are true. The very basis of my profession is being able to give weight to both sides of a coin, even if you have to commit to one eventually.

My simple point was that I have yet to come across something substantive that he has advocated that I believe he's been dead wrong about. I also haven't managed to find one strong critics of his who has really had pressing issues with his economic ideas; they all seem to object to him on the basis of his social and political views, which he has made quite obvious.

If it looks like I'm patronizing that's unfortunately how my posts look without that intention. You don't get much "tone" like when you speak face to face. I don't know you so some of my posts will make certain assumptions based only on what people have posted.

I think what I wrote was substantive enough. The links I provided show others who are much better at explaining than I am and they have large disagreements with Keynesian economics. Ultimately as I posted before Keynesian economics fits better with what politicians want. They hate unemployment even if it's needed in the long run. They will debase the currency and throw money at make work projects to try and stop it but it ultimately needs to happen. The great thing is that individuals who are thrifty and plan for the future will do better even if the economics aren't ideal. As long as you have a job there is opportunity for investment. Western democracies are in the hole and need to get out and low interest rates or make work projects won't mean much unless people start paying back their loans and throwing as much money as humanly possible on their mortgages. Once the debt in the population is more manageable they will have more disposable income for consumption. My guess when the next boom comes people will probably do the same thing and get in the hole again. That's how the cycles have been for the longest time.
 
Back
Top Bottom