Happy Anniver­sary Wall Street

Flattr this!

If I was asked to nom­i­nate the wis­est apho­rism of all time, Mark Twain’s “His­tory doesn’t repeat, but it sure does rhyme” would def­i­nitely be one of my top two can­di­dates.

On song, today Wall Street is replay­ing the 1930s, but to a slightly dif­fer­ent meter. With the 80th anniver­sary of  the Great Crash of 1929 falling on Octo­ber 29th of this year, Wall Street is cel­e­brat­ing in char­ac­ter­is­tic style–with a eupho­ria-led bub­ble that now appears to be crash­ing up against eco­nomic real­ity.

image002

Of course, our time is not a mir­ror image of that momen­tous period 80 years ago. It’s closer to a mir­ror image of the days roughly a year later, when the first two bear mar­ket ral­lies that fol­lowed the crash finally petered out, and the long slow grind of the Great Depres­sion grad­u­ally took hold on the econ­omy and the minds of Amer­ica.

But in 1930, though on our reck­on­ing the Depres­sion had well and truly begun, the mind­set that pre­vailed was very sim­i­lar to today’s—that the worst of the cri­sis is behind us, and eco­nomic recov­ery is under­way.

image004

This mind­set is on show at the won­der­ful blog News from 1930, which in hon­our of this week’s anniver­sary is pub­lish­ing news sum­maries from the Wall Street Jour­nal of 1929 as well as from 1930. Read­ing news­pa­per sto­ries from 1930 is remark­able enough on a day by day basis, as com­ments made about the recov­ery that was then in place (and the return of the bull mar­ket) could eas­ily have been lifted from today’s—or last week’s—newspapers. But to see these jux­ta­posed with the actual cov­er­age of the Crash of 1929 is all the more star­tling.

The most obvi­ous chord in the his­tor­i­cal song is that very few peo­ple realise when they are par­tic­i­pants in an event of his­toric pro­por­tions. Even though the Dow had never fallen by any­thing like what it did in the five days of the Great Crash, the belief that  this would nonethe­less turn out to be a rather ordi­nary event was the dom­i­nant per­spec­tive, as this excerpt from the Wall Street Journal’s Edi­to­r­ial for Sat­ur­day Octo­ber 26th 1929 indi­cates:

The mar­ket will find itself, for Wall Street does its own liq­ui­da­tion and always with a remark­able absence of any­thing like finan­cial cat­a­stro­phe. … Sug­ges­tions that the wip­ing out of paper prof­its will reduce the country’s real pur­chas­ing power seem rather far-fetched.”

It seems that only in ret­ro­spect was it realised that 1929 was a water­shed in world his­tory: few liv­ing at the time actu­ally under­stood that—and none of them had their prog­nos­ti­ca­tions pub­lished by the Wall Street Jour­nal.

One year later, though the far-fetched had become some­what harder to dis­miss, the gen­eral tenor of eco­nomic and busi­ness com­men­tary was that the worst of the cri­sis was over, and that 1931 would be a bumper year for the mar­ket and the wider econ­omy. This obser­va­tion in a radio address by Gen­eral Motors exec­u­tive and Demo­c­ra­tic Party National Com­mit­tee Chair J. Raskob is indica­tive of busi­ness atti­tudes in 1930:

In clos­ing, let me say that no coun­try in the world, not even our own, was ever in as splen­did posi­tion to go for­ward and enjoy a period of pros­per­ity as our own coun­try is today. Every­thing has been thor­oughly deflated and busi­ness is now turn­ing upward. The momen­tum is nec­es­sar­ily slow at first, but within three months … we will quickly leave depres­sion behind.”. (WSJ Tues­day Octo­ber 1930)

The sec­ond chord is that the causes and effects of momen­tous events can be mis­un­der­stood both at the time and in retrospect—which leads human­ity to repeat its mis­takes all over again. Read­ing the com­men­tary in the 1930, it is clear that the gov­ern­ment of the time was doing all it thought pos­si­ble to pre­vent the Crash turn­ing into an eco­nomic cri­sis, and it appeared to believe that it had been suc­cess­ful.

The sta­tis­tics cer­tainly imply that Hoover wasn’t sit­ting on his hands doing noth­ing as Wall Street burned, which is the mod­ern mythol­ogy. Gov­ern­ment debt was equiv­a­lent to 30 per­cent of GDP when the cri­sis began; just 3 years later it was 70 per­cent of GDP—and that was when the so-called “auto­matic sta­bilis­ers” were a lot smaller than they are today (because the gov­ern­ment sec­tor was much smaller back then).

Yet the view that dom­i­nates con­ven­tional eco­nomic think­ing today is that the Depres­sion was caused by a dis­en­gaged gov­ern­ment and bad mon­e­tary policy—if only the Fed hadn’t tight­ened in 1930, every­thing would have been fine. In fact, if the Fed did tighten—and the evi­dence on that is mixed—it was because they, like today’s Fed, believed they had already done enough to avert cat­a­stro­phe.

Bol­locks to that: the prob­lem in 1930 wasn’t the tight­en­ing of fiat money, but the pre­ced­ing fail­ure to con­strain the pri­vate debt bub­ble that financed Wall Street’s spec­u­la­tive excess of the 1920s. Yet armed with the mis­guided belief that there wouldn’t have been a Great Depres­sion had the Fed not tight­ened in 1930, the Fed of the 1980s-2007 ignored an even big­ger bub­ble in pri­vate debt than its pre­de­ces­sor ignored in the 1920s.

image006

By the time Ben Bernanke made his fawn­ing paean to Mil­ton Fried­man at his 90th birthday—“Let me end my talk by abus­ing slightly my sta­tus as an offi­cial rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the Fed­eral Reserve. I would like to say to Mil­ton and Anna: Regard­ing the Great Depres­sion. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again”—the Fed had already caused a far big­ger cri­sis by ignor­ing pri­vate debt and the asset bub­ble it financed.

I’ll fin­ish with my other favourite apho­rism: Max Planck’s obser­va­tion that “sci­ence pro­gresses one funeral at a time”. It will take a lot of funer­als before the eco­nom­ics pro­fes­sion aban­dons the fol­lies that led it to describe the decade lead­ing up to today’s cri­sis as “The Great Mod­er­a­tion”.

Bookmark the permalink.
  • ak

    TruthIs­ThereIs­NoTruth,

    I am sorry I dis­agree. For me there is a sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence between cul­tures which are toxic and these which are less toxic. I count Pol­ish cul­ture as one of the most toxic together with some con­ser­v­a­tive Islamic cul­tures. There is no sin­gle fac­tor what makes life truly mis­er­able even if you are rel­a­tively rich. It is the com­bi­na­tion of mul­ti­ple issues.

    Would any nor­mal West­ern soci­ety qui­etly accept 20% unem­ploy­ment rate not because of any exter­nal fac­tor but just because the Cen­tral Bank has esti­mated NAIRU to be 14% and the diz­in­fla­tion pol­icy was imple­mented a bit too vig­or­ously?

    Has any­one ever ques­tioned there the b…t eco­nomic the­ory which led prof Bal­cerow­icz to stran­gle the econ­omy and the soci­ety (sup­pos­edly in order to get ready to join the EU) and push it into the lov­ing arms of the Catholic Church? Only extreme Marx­ists dared to crit­i­cise Bal­cerow­icz — but Marx­ism is vir­tu­ally extinct so they didn’t get any trac­tion.

    If you do really care about the Poles (I prob­a­bly don’t care enough and don’t have time) I may ask kindly you to do one very impor­tant thing. Trans­late a few posts from Steve’s blog into Pol­ish and also add a few more posts from prof Mitchell’s Char­tal­ist blog — for exam­ple the expla­na­tion of the ver­ti­cal flows and role of the bud­get deficits.

    These ideas are vir­tu­ally non-exis­tent in the Pol­ish lan­guage space. Pretty much all the eco­nom­ics taught is neo­clas­si­cal. Peo­ple there (circa 37 mln minus migrants) have no slight­est idea that the the­o­ries used to man­age the econ­omy are not based on sound sci­ence but they are just polit­i­cal tools implanted there by the neolib­er­als dur­ing the strug­gle to get rid of the com­mu­nism.

  • scep­ti­cus

    Ak — great post.

  • TruthIs­ThereIs­NoTruth

    ak,

    I don’t dis­agree, what I am say­ing is Poland is not unique. There are 200 coun­tries in this world and only a hand­ful of those have a robust and rea­son­able sys­tem of eco­nomic and polit­i­cal man­age­ment that you seem to be using as an aspi­ra­tional bench­mark. In the rest of the world there is mas­sive eco­nomic mis­man­age­ment, cor­rup­tion and mis­ery. Actu­ally rel­a­tive to the WHOLE world Poland is not that bad.

    In my opin­ion though the coun­tries that are doing well in terms of stan­dard of liv­ing have got­ten to this point with some mas­sive boosts from the exploita­tion of it’s colonies and sub­ser­vant coun­tries, but that’s another topic…