| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front Economy |
| Creating a Great Depression |
| 2008-09-29 |
| Markets didn't cause the Great Depression - the government did. Roosevelt is now venerated only partly because he won WWII. But the main reason he is such a widely-admired figure is the same reason that Obama is viewed as some kind of conquering hero - good publicity from a left-wing media and intelligentsia. Financial downturns are unpleasant, but they do not need to turn into the Great Depression, which historians now agree was the product primarily of a number of egregious policy mistakes. For almost 80 years, we have thus felt safe from a recurrence of the "Great Depression" phenomenon, primarily on the basis of "we have learned from those mistakes -- nobody would today be so stupid." Sadly recent events suggest that this optimism may have been misplaced and that politicians, never the most economically intelligent of mankind, may be working towards the considerable feat of constructing a Great Depression -- Mark II. The bull market before 1929 was sold for a generation as unprecedented in size, representing an apogee of speculation that had never been seen before and would never be seen again. We now know that to be rubbish. Radio Corporation of America, the Google or Microsoft of the period, never sold for more than 28 times earnings, a generous valuation to be sure but nothing compared to the stratospheric prices reached by the more fashionable dot-coms in 1999-2000. The stock market capitalization to Gross Domestic Product ratio peaked in 1929 at 75%, above the long-term average of 58%, equal to the 1966 peak, but less than half of the 185% it reached in 1999 and still substantially less than the 105% of GDP at the end of 2007. Then there was housing, which in the 1920s enjoyed no great boom outside Florida (partly because mortgage finance was then very conservative) and so did not represent a giant overhang of overpriced assets ready to crush the economy when markets turned. |
| Posted by:Zhang Fei |
| #14 Happy belated birthday, Barbara dear. I hope it was even more enjoyable than you deserve! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-09-29 23:58 |
| #13 TW - the lady who handles my IRA recently called and asked if I intended to start taking Social Security since I just turned 62. I nearly fell off my chair laughing. I told her I intend to work at least until I'm 70, and maybe longer depending on my health, and will start taking SS only when I have to and won't be penalized for it. As long as my health is good, why would I try to live on SS at 62? IIUC, SS receipients who work are penalized, so why start so soon if you don't have to? And what would I do all day? Oh, I've got plenty I could do, but if I started taking SS at 62 I'd have no money to do it. For decades. SS & Medicare are a pharking mess. Thanks, government. >:-( |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-09-29 23:32 |
| #12 Social Security? My prediction is that we will all continue to pay in, but those of us with more than minimum income will end up getting nothing at all back, ie in the end just another progressive tax. In the meantime, I read the other day that 30% of those aged 65-69 are working at least part-time, and 10% of those 70-75... which means they are still paying into the SS fund, when they were expected only to be receiving. I don't know if that will change things significantly, or whether it will balance out people living longer and getting more at the far end. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-09-29 23:02 |
| #11 The big five parts of government are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Defense and Discretionary, which really just means "everything else". And of course, not counting the interest on the national debt. The logical way to cut Social Security without shafting anybody, is with the idea of returning it to what it was supposed to be: a *full* retirement for minimum wage workers with no other retirement. Those "advanced in the system" or receiving benefits should have the option of still getting their stipend, or getting a little *more* than their stipend in an income tax deduction. Those who are "intermediate in the system" but still have income just get the tax deduction to the amount they have paid in to the system. And those just starting have their total FICA payments converted to an IRA. This again omits the minimum wage earners who continue through the system as is, except facing a real retirement income that is enough to live on, not just a couple hundred bucks a month. Medicaid should be controlled and paid for by the States with a lump sum. The States figure out how to use or not use the money. The system should be designed for multi-State pools of health care resources, eventually eliminating the need for federal involvement at all. Medicare has to be means tested, and prioritized so that less expensive, more effective treatments are fully covered, and very expensive yet ineffective treatments are not. Not that radical, really. If you are 90 years old and need a heart lung xplant, you might as well forget it. Defense is going to be the trickiest to cut. Instead, the president should authorize some ways in which the DoD can make money, and there are some legitimate ways, to augment their budgets. The Chinese have had involvement of their military in private enterprise for years, and with some constraints, it's not such a bad idea. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-09-29 22:06 |
| #10 But now we are up to our ears in government intervention and credit. They will no longer work because they have become vitiated through over use. That is, neither economic growth or inflation will allow us to continue with ever growing spending. So all we can do is cut spending. And not just cut the rate of spending. Next year, tax revenues are going to be in the basement. But there will be no more credit for the government to borrow money from. They will still want to spend money like a drunken sailor, but the Treasury will be bare. At that point, what they want doesn't matter. They can no more buy a hamburger than can an ordinary person if he can't pay for it. I completely agree with these points. Our problem isn't insufficient government - it's too much government, to the point that, in an economic slump, we can't even pay for ordinary expenditures (entitlements, defense, et al), let alone extraordinary ones. Even as our deficits skyrocket, I expect defense to be substantially cut in the years ahead, whether under McCain or Obama. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-09-29 21:24 |
| #9 Good post. |
| Posted by: newc 2008-09-29 20:43 |
| #8 Was that deal on television (snark)? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-09-29 20:38 |
| #7 They had the advantage of master saleman/propagandist Roosevelt the last time around. I don't think Obama will prove to be as persuasive. Roosevelt could have sold sand to the Saudis. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-09-29 20:36 |
| #6 "They can no more buy a hamburger than can an ordinary person if he can't pay for it." 'Moose, the Dems will steal the hamburger from the ordinary person and then scream that the Republicans did it. >:-( |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-09-29 20:32 |
| #5 I think he misses the boat, because we are starting from the opposite side of the field. In the GD, the government didn't interfere for a long time, and did too little. The solution was government intervention and explosive growth via deficit spending and credit. But now we are up to our ears in government intervention and credit. They will no longer work because they have become vitiated through over use. That is, neither economic growth or inflation will allow us to continue with ever growing spending. So all we can do is cut spending. And not just cut the rate of spending. Next year, tax revenues are going to be in the basement. But there will be no more credit for the government to borrow money from. They will still want to spend money like a drunken sailor, but the Treasury will be bare. At that point, what they want doesn't matter. They can no more buy a hamburger than can an ordinary person if he can't pay for it. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-09-29 20:30 |
| #4 Obama is no Roosevelt. Obama, Reed and Pelosi are more like the Three Stooges. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2008-09-29 20:25 |
| #3 Oh, left out a step. With the money, the US underwrote the Creditanstalt loans to Germany. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-09-29 20:22 |
| #2 The Creditanstalt collapse can directly be attributed to the French. The US had set up a system by which the Creditanstalt would loan money at low interest to Germany, which would use it to pay war reparations to France and England. France and England would then repay the "loan lease" repayment to the US. But the French, determined to punish the Germans (and who had hoped to reduce Germany to an agrarian state earlier), declared the Germans in default over a late delivery of a ship full of telephone poles. So the French Army occupied the Ruhr, which was Germany's industrial heartland. This suddenly pulled the rug out from German debt to the Creditanstalt, which threw it into bankruptcy. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-09-29 20:21 |
| #1 I believe that the left has discovered that in the absence of perception of a depression, nobody except kooks and morons want their agenda. After all, the last time they had massive free reign to push America towards socialism was the 1930's. Unable to get their agenda through under any other circumstances, they have decided to return to those times by doing all they can to enhance the perception of depression. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2008-09-29 20:11 |