Showing posts with label Great Depression. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Great Depression. Show all posts

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Friedman vs. Mundell on the Great Depression.

At The Freeman, Ivan Pongracic Jr. explains Milton Friedman’s view of the Great Depression.

From his 1999 Nobel speech, supply-side guru Robert Mundell outlines his view of the Depression:
World War I made gold unstable. The instability began when deficit spending pushed the European belligerents off the gold standard, and gold came to the United States, where the newly-created Federal Reserve System monetized it, doubling the dollar price level and halving the real value of gold. The instability continued when, after the war, the Federal Reserve engineered a dramatic deflation in the recession of 1920-21, bringing the dollar (and gold) price level 60 percent of the way back toward the prewar equilibrium, a level at which the Federal Reserve kept it until 1929.

It was in this milieu that the rest of the world, led by Germany, Britain and France, returned to the gold standard. The problem was that, with world (dollar) prices still 40 percent above their prewar equilibrium, the real value of gold reserves and supplies was proportionately smaller. At the same time monetary gold was badly distributed, with half of it in the United States. In addition, uncertainty over exchange rates and reparations (which were fixed in gold) increased the demand for reserves. In the face of this situation would not the increased demand for gold brought about by a return to the gold standard bring on a deflation? A few economists, like Charles Rist of France, Ludwig von Mises of Austria and Gustav Cassel of Sweden, thought it would….

Rist, Mises and Cassel proved to be right. Deflation was already in the air in the late 1920's with the fall in prices of agricultural products and raw materials. The Wall Street crash in 1929 was another symptom, and generalized deflation began in 1930. That the deflation was generalized if uneven can be seen from the percentage loss of wholesale prices in various countries from the high in 1929 to September 1931 (the month that Britain left the gold standard): Japan, 40.5; Netherlands, 38.1; Belgium, 31.3; Italy 31.0; United States, 29.5; United Kingdom, 29.2; Canada, 28.9; France, 28.3; Germany, 22.0.

The dollar price level hit bottom in 1932 and 1933….

For decades economists have wrestled with the problem of what caused the deflation and depression of the 1930's. The massive literature on the subject has brought on more heat than light. One source of controversy has been whether the depression was caused by a shift of aggregate demand or a fall in the money supply. Surely the answer is both! But none of the theories—monetarist or Keynesian—would have been able to predict the fall in the money supply or aggregate demand in advance. They were rooted in short-run closed-economy models which could not pick up the gold standard effects during and after World War I. By contrast, the theory that the deflation was caused by the return to the gold standard was not only predictable, but was actually, as we have noted above, predicted.

The gold exchange standard was already on the ropes with the onset of deflation. It moved into its crisis phase with the failure, in the spring of 1931, of the Viennese Creditanstalt, the biggest bank in Central Europe, bringing into play a chain reaction that spread to Germany, where it was met by deflationary monetary policies and a reimposition of controls, and to Britain, where, on September 21, 1931, the pound was taken off gold. Several countries, however, had preceded Britain in going off gold: Australia, Brazil, Chile, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela, while Austria, Canada, Germany and Hungary had imposed controls. A large number of other countries followed Britain off gold.

Meanwhile, the United States hung onto to the gold standard for dear life. After making much of its sensible shift to a monetary policy that sets as its goal price stability rather than maintenance of the gold standard, it reverted back to the latter at the very time it mattered most, in the early 1930's.

Instead of pumping liquidity into the system, it chose to defend the gold standard. Hard on the heels of the British departure from gold, in October 1931, the Federal Reserve raised the rediscount rate in two steps from 1_ to 3_ percent dragging the economy deeper into the mire of deflation and depression and aggravating the banking crisis. As we have seen, wholesale prices fell 35 percent between 1929 and 1933.

Monetary deflation was transformed into depression by fiscal shocks. The Smoot-Hawley tariff, which led to retaliation abroad, was the first: between 1929 and 1933 imports fell by 30 percent and, significantly, exports fell even more, by almost 40 percent. On June 6, 1932, the Democratic Congress passed, and President Herbert Hoover signed, in a fit of balanced-budget mania, one of its most ill-advised acts, the Revenue Act of 1932, a bill which provided the largest percentage tax increase ever enacted in American peacetime history. Unemployment rose to a high of 24.9 percent of the labor force in 1933, and GDP fell by 57 percent at current prices and 22 percent in real terms.

The banking crisis was now in full swing. Failures had soared from an average of about 500 per year in the 1920's, to 1,350 in 1930, 2,293 in 1931, and 1,453 in 1932. Franklin D. Roosevelt, in one of his first actions on assuming the presidency in March 1933, put an embargo on gold exports. After April 20, the dollar was allowed to float downward.

The deflation of the 1930's was the mirror image of the wartime rise in the price level that had not been reversed in the 1920-21 recession. When countries go off the gold standard, gold falls in real value and the price level in gold countries rise. When countries go onto the gold standard, gold rises in real value and the price level falls. The appreciation of gold in the 1930's was the mirror image of the depreciation of gold in World War I. The dollar price level in 1934 was the same as the dollar price level in 1914. The deflation of the 1930's has to be seen, not as a unique "crisis of capitalism,” as the Marxists were prone to say, but as a continuation of a pattern that had appeared with considerable predictability before—whenever countries shift onto or return to a monetary standard. The deflation in the 1930's has its precedents in the 1780's, the 1820's and the 1870's.

What verdict can be passed on this third of the century? One is that the Federal Reserve System was fatally guilt of inconsistency at critical times. It held onto the gold standard between 1914 and 1921 when gold had become unstable. It shifted over to a policy of price stability in the 1920's that was successful. But it shifted back to the gold standard at the worst time imaginable, when gold had again become unstable. The unfortunate fact was that the least experienced of the important central banks—the new boy on the block—had the awesome power to make or break the system by itself.

The European economies were by no means blameless in this episode. They were the countries that changed the status quo and moved onto the gold standard without weighing the consequences. They failed to heed the lessons of history—that a concerted movement off, or onto, any metallic standard brings in its wake, respectively, inflation or deflation. After a great war, in which inflation has occurred in the monetary leader and gold has become correspondingly undervalued, a return to the gold standard is only consistent with price stability if the price of gold is increased. Failing that possibility, countries would have fared better had they heeded Keynes' advice to sacrifice the benefits of fixed exchange rates under the gold standard and instead stabilize commodity prices rather than the price of gold.

Had the price of gold been raised in the late 1920's, or, alternatively, had the major central banks pursued policies of price stability instead of adhering to the gold standard, there would have been no Great Depression, no Nazi revolution and no World War II….

In April 1934, after a year of flexible exchange rates, the United States went back to gold after a devaluation of the dollar. This decreased the gold value of the dollar by 40.94 percent, raising the official price of gold 69.33 percent to $35 an ounce. How history would have been changed had President Herbert Hoover devalued the dollar, three years earlier!

France held onto its gold parity until 1936, when it devalued the franc. Two other far-reaching events occurred in that year. One was the publication of Keynes' General Theory; the other signing of the Tripartite Accord among the United States, Britain and France. One ushered in a new theory of policy management for a closed economy; the other, a precursor of the Bretton Woods agreement, established some rules for exchange rate management in the new international monetary system.

The contradiction between the two could hardly be more ironic. At a time when Keynesian policies of national economic management were becoming increasingly accepted by economists, the world economy had adopted a new fixed exchange rate system that was incompatible with those policies.

Monday, February 21, 2011

Challenge to Wanniski's Smoot-Hawley theory.

From Economic Principals, David Warsh claims a new book overturns Jude Wanniski’s Smoot-Hawley/Great Depression hypothesis.

From the archive, Wanniski explains his theory.

At his blog, Paul Krugman applauds Warsh.

From Econtalk last year, Thomas Rustici supports Wanniski’s view.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Weekend items.

On New World Economics, Nathan Lewis challenges Keynesian and Austrian economics.

At Imprimis, Amity Schlaes
compares the government’s response to the Great Depression versus today.

On You Tube, former White House economist Keith Hennessy
rebuts Austin Goolsbee’s recent white board presentation:



On Meet The Press’s press panel, David Brooks
advocates budget austerity and tax hikes, including total rollback of the Bush tax cuts.

At The Telegraph (UK), Jeremy Warner
counters Paul Krugman’s attack on British austerity.

In a report from The American Action Forum, Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Cameron Smith
oppose a VAT tax.

Capitol Confidential
reports David Malpass has started a PAC.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Thursday update.

On Bloomberg TV, Keynesian C. Fred Bergsten of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, calls China a currency manipulator for keeping the yuan stable, and advocates the U.S. buy Chinese currency.

At CafĂ© Hayek, Don Boudreaux explains that Chinese trade doesn’t diminish good jobs in the U.S.

On The Kudlow Report, Larry discusses rising oil and other commodities:




The WSJ’s David Wessell reports on a new paper suggesting low Fed interest rates caused the housing bubble.

On Asia Times, David Goldman suggests we have symptoms of deflation and inflation because:

When the Fed prints money, investors flee to other currencies, and foreign central banks intervene and buy dollars which they invest in Treasuries. It has precisely the same effect as the Fed’s own buying of bonds — yields fall. This increases the risk of future inflation so the market buys hedges against it (and you should, too).

The WSJ editorial board warns Democrats and Republicans against scapegoating China.

On CNBC, Paul Krugman calls China “the bad guy” in the currency war, and advocates for trillions in additional quantitative easing:




Reuters reports increased unemployment and inflation.

At Conscience of a Liberal, Krugman makes a convincing argument that the scariest part of debt-to-GDP analysis is the weak GDP:


At Forbes, Rich Karlgaard applauds Greg Mankiw’s recent tax analysis.

On The Kudlow Report, Stephen Moore analyzes the President’s NYT contrition:




Seeker Blog discusses Douglas Irwin’s recent paper, “Did France Cause the Great Depression?”

From 1997, Jude Wanniski argues the Great Depression was solely a fiscal crisis.

From June, John Tamny suggests there was a deflationary component in the 1920s.

Sunday, October 3, 2010

Weekend update.

In The WSJ, Steve Moore interviews House GOP chief Eric Cantor on the party's election message. No mention of sound money.

Another concern is that Republicans lack a coherent growth agenda beyond simply cutting spending. To this, Mr. Cantor objects: "We will start by unraveling the economic damage that has been done by their agenda, whether it's health care, or whether it's the financial reg reform or regulations from EPA that are strangling businesses."
On The Kudlow Report, Don Luskin is optimistic about the economy:




At RCM, Larry Kudlow sees few improvements coming from the President’s staff shakeup.

Also in The Journal, Charles Schwab suggests the Federal Reserve’s low interest rate policy is damaging savers and reducing the availability of credit.
The negative impact of current policy is clear. The near-zero interest rate experiment is weighing on consumer and investor confidence, and the Fed signals its lack of confidence with each "extended period" proclamation. It is providing banks with low-interest financing that can be used to create modest returns through a carry-trade in U.S. Treasurys but is adding nothing to the velocity of money, which is what actually generates economic growth.

The Fed's super-loose policy has driven down the security and spending power of savers, particularly those in retirement who played by the rules during their working years and now depend on the earnings from their savings for a decent quality of life. As a result, savers and investors are being forced to take more risk with their money as they hunt for higher yields.

The extreme monetary policy is also having no positive impact on the availability of consumer or business credit, job growth or consumer and business spending.

At Market Oracle (UK), Barry Grey summarizes the emerging global currency war.

The Las Vegas Review Journal reports on a Steve Forbes speech.

On Kudlow, Larry debates Sec. Geithner’s call for more stimulus spending:




Robert Reich likens today’s Republicans to Herbert Hoover. He omits that the Great Depression’s main causes – an unstable dollar, a large tariff, and tax rate increases – are items on his party's current agenda.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Friday update.

In The WSJ, Don Luskin worries we may repeat Great Depression-era policies (full article here).


In The Washington Post, Amity Schlaes warns against repeating past economic errors.


From the archives, Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek discusses Keynes' monetary views.


Keynesian C. Fred Bergsten argues global trade imbalances and insufficient U.S. savings are the root of our economic problems. Related charts here.


The IMF advises the U.S. to cut spending and raise taxes.


Alan Greenspan sees a pause in the economic recovery.


Liberal political strategist Bob Shrum frames the debate between liberal stimulus and conservative austerity.


Paul Krugman hopes the Federal Reserve will do more to stimulate the economy.


The Calgary Herald cites Robert Mundell's advice to cut the U.S. corporation tax.


At AEI, floating currency proponent John H. Makin forecasts deflation coming.


Thursday, July 8, 2010

Thursday items.

In The WSJ, Art Laffer argues unemployment benefits extends unemployment.

David Goldman analyzes the unemployed.

Larry Kudlow interviews Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Part 2 here.

From April, Dan Mitchell explains why raising taxes on capital is a mistake.

John Tamny reviews Austrian economist Thomas Woods’ new book.

Amity Schlaes cautions against listening to Depression predictions.

Peter Ferrara saw Obamanomics’ failure coming.

Karl Rove advocates a pro-growth agenda.

To maximize their gains, Republicans must go beyond promising to slash Democratic spending and reverse the Obama agenda (as important as these are). They also need to offer a competing agenda for increasing jobs and prosperity, and outline the concrete steps they will take to get back on the track for economic growth.

Paul Krugman fears his pro-growth advocacy will make him the left's Art Laffer.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Wednesday items.

David Goldman predicts the federal government will bail out state governments.

In Forbes, Brian Wesbury and Robert Stein refute depression pessimists.


Joseph Calhoun thinks stocks are a bargain.


Forbes' Rich Karlgaard proposes ways to unleash sidelined wealth.


From May, Louis Woodhill explains that we can't tax our out of debt.


House Republicans pledge to make job creation their priority.

Newt Gingrich favors a pro-growth agenda.


George W. Bush economist Kevin Hassett opposes repealing the Bush tax cuts.


Prodigal supply-sider David Stockman offers his take on the Great Depression.


In The WSJ, Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr.

discusses the Keynes vs. Hayek debate. (Full text here.)


Atlas Shrugged villain Paul Krugman says Keynesianism will work if government spends more.

Krugman also

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Weekend items.

Nathan Lewis looks at the impact of tax increases during the Great Depression.

From last week, Lewis examines middle class decline.

I made a similar argument last month.

The WSJ editorializes that Keynesian spending has come to a dead end.

The Economist argues too much borrowing is the root of world economic troubles.

Larry Kudlow features Steve Moore and James Galbraith, in which Galbraith makes a good point:
The IMF has a study on [deficits] covering the whole G-20 which shows that over half of the increase in deficits since the crisis is due to collapsing tax revenues. Less than 10 percent is due to increasing spending. A very large additional share is due to the very low rate of growth in relation to interest payments on national debts.... [Deficits are] an artifact of the financial crisis, it's not because governments have gone whole hog on spending programs; they haven't done that.

Steve Hanke opposes exchange rate controls.

Jonathan Chait suggests Republicans often sell tax cuts in Keynesian terms.

U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) criticizes Congress for not passing a budget.

Reason's Tim Cavanugh says Paul Krugman's economics have been proven wrong.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Friday items.

Larry Kudlow gives this blog a hat tip in his discussion of Mundell's strong dollar theory.


Heritage argues against spending increases, saying, "Excessive spending--not low revenues--accounts for 92% of deficits by 2014 and 100% by 2017."


Still, in a time of high unemployment, wouldn't it be best to start addressing deficits by increasing employment and GDP growth?


John Tamny thinks Gates and Buffett should promote growth over charity.


Paul Krugman worries that austerity will produce crisis.


In The WSJ, Prof. Douglas A. Irwin restates Jude Wanniski's thesis that Smoot-Hawley caused the Great Depression.


Alan Greenspan, who is not a supply-sider, worries about deficits.