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.
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.
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.
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”.






BTB,
Thanks for that. It makes sense and explains why they are rationing.
It sounds as if capital ratios and reserves are one area that may need to be looked at by the regulators.
Its funny, our mining sector, the reported growth engine of the economy for the next 40 years is needing to tap foreign investors to get projects up and running, selling part of our assets and companies in the process but our banks will lend 10 times income to the miners of those same companies so they can buy houses, boats and SUV’s.
There is something really wrong with that picture.
Indeed! For those who’d like to join me (for one or two days–more if able but a single day and about 10-15km of walking would be fine) I am working out a suitable date now around the time of the mid-semester break in April 2010. Stay tuned–as well as putting up my Debtwatch Report later on today (still working on it) I’ll put a commentary up on house prices as well this week, where I hope I can finalise the plans for the walk.
Market update. Even though I will be called an exploiter. Bad luck! some of you are interested to see how people can explain such huge swings in the markets when the mainstream think that future earnings (rational decisions) drive markets! Rot!
On Friday night, the US and Europe confirmed 5 waves down from the interim top. Many 8 month trend lines were broken and back tested last week. This is very significant and opens the door for 4 main scenarios over the next couple of weeks. I will order them in the order that I see most likely to play out. This does not mean it will happen. Just that IMHO the probability of 1 playing out is higher than 4.
1. The markets will rally in 3 waves (1 up, 1 down and another up) over the next few days or week. After this the markets will fall quite hard (in 5 waves again) followed by another 3 wave rally (wave 4) and then the markets will put in an intermediate bottom, some time in November or early December (roughly). Before another multi-week rally begins. Once again in 3 waves. If this plays out, IMO it will confirm that the primary trend has turned back down and look out below. If this plays out quicker, there may be a crash to test the March lows before Christmas.
2. The market rallies in 3 waves (same as above), falls in another 5 waves, But breadth and volume wanes. After this the market rallies very hard and overlaps Friday night’s low point. This will strongly suggest the larger degree market rally is not yet over and that we are heading for new market highs.
3. The count is flat out wrong and the markets head for a new high over the next few weeks.
4. The count is much more bearish than many think and the market crashes ’87 and ’29 style this week.
Why do I tell you all this crap? because I believe the markets are a great predictor of where the economy is heading and where social mood will trend.
The massive rally since March counts in a clear 3 waves at this stage. 3 waves is a counter trend move and so it is a false pointer to a new boom/bull market. Should that morph into 5 waves up over the next 6 to 12 months, then I will have to eat my biased words and get on with the new up-cycle. For interest sake. If that were to occur, after 5 waves up would come a massive wave 2 back down (but not make a new low). Those holding out to buy a house. If we are all wrong. That would be the best time to buy. Because for several months fear will temporarily return and it will feel like the march lows again. At this stage I see that as a very low probability. Sorry for the mumbo jumbo. I am using Elliot Wave Theory to count waves in the stock markets.
BTB,
I cannot debate your statements regarding social mood swings because I agree with you and have to admit that you know a hundred times more than me regarding the financial markets behaviour.
The problem which I have with the role of governments (and the financial oligarchies pulling the strings from behind) is that they are not the same as in the 1930-ties. The only thing they have to do to prevent a deflationary collapse is to throw more money created out of thin air. This will not fix any underlying problems, may even make some of them worse – but will prevent a chain of events which were triggered in 1930-1933 as a direct result of the initial deleveraging impulse.
We have seen it once – we will see it a few times more.
If somebody says that “bond vigilantes” can force the US government to stop spending when they can’t sell bonds any more – I think that this is completely incorrect. If an emergency is declared the government will have a blank card to do anything they want. Investors will not go to the streets – but unemployed can.
Now back to TAE. They have linked a nice diagram showing how the economy is supposed to work and what the liquidity trap is:
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/LiquidityTrap.gif
What is not present on this diagram is direct government spending. (I haven’t validated the data).
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
40% of the GDP and counting. So where does it lead to? A deflationary collapse or maybe a kind of pseudo-socialism?
Thanks btb
Always interesting IMHO to read your musings…
Do you have any idea of how to tell if one of the big 4 banks was making bets against the mortgage market?
As in
‘How Goldman secretly bet on the U.S. housing crash’
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/77791.html
Also locally loosely related…
‘Commonwealth Bank pressures staff to lift credit cards and loans’
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26283382-5001021,00.html
Thank you Bullturnbear, Elliotwave,AK,Automatic earth, and Steven Keen for allowing the flame wars.
Deflation and Inflation debate always brings out the worst and best in all people.
I have learnt some valuable lessons we are all human beings with our own emotions and bias judgements.
Some human beings want inflation make a fortune in gold or hyperinflation is dream come true for people in high debt.
Deflationists are more prudent savers still believe in the rule of law, government will not print away like Nazi Germany.
Deflationists still want cash to win,because they can pick up assets cheap.
So deflationists are not real doom and gloomers.
Prophets and Guru’s are bais as well.
Many examples of mistakes Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers with his China will save the world economy and America stockmarket will only collapse.
Buffett his taxpayer bail outs, side letter agreements which made HIH and AIG larger failures.
All financial websites need to take into account their own agenda adjust for that.
Marc Faber and Peter Schiff absurd comments that America will have hyperinflation like Zimbabwe no evidence of that.
Remember they have gold like to see great increase in the price.
America is not a inland country with no natural deep water harbour for export.
America is not enclosed by hostile enemies game enough to take them on.
America white farmers are not being kill and force of their land.
America still has great resources land minerals and water compare with Zimbabwe.
Rule of law is still a lot stronger in America compare to Zimbabwe.
I don’t believe we will be living in caves and the rule law will eventually win after great financial suffering.
Hi AK,
I too am not sure that ““bond vigilantes” can force the US government to stop spending when they can’t sell bonds any more”.
But I do believe that the bond market and governments are driven by fear, greed and risk. Just like all other markets and market participants. Therefore, bond markets will not act rationally.
Another observation about government. Do you remember all the policy moves that the US made from March to November 2008? Yet none of that stopped the markets from crashing and the public going into a panic.
Those not following market sentiment surveys would not know that the markets did not stop falling until market bulls fell to 2% (a new record). That means in March only 2% of traders thought the market would rise. Yet the MSM reports that governments bailed out the world. Why didn’t the bailouts stop the markets from crashing in November and March? The market simply ran out of sellers and so prices began to rise, which crushed shorts (everyone) and endogenously created more buyers. Poof! a new rally.
Have you noticed that many people are now referring to the economic bottom as being March ’09? These people are confusing the stock market with the real economy. To me that is an example of “how people feel”, not rationality being reflected in their decisions.
I can live with the notion that government my pull a left field policy (no pun intended) that no one can predict. But I will not be relying on governments to save me. I believe governments have a long history of making matters worse. Not better.
Remember 1933. Well after the crash. The US passed the Glass-Steggall Act. The irony was that after the crash had occurred and all the money was lost. The government passed a law that restricted speculation so that the banks had no means to speculate to get theirs and their depositors’ money back. This made the market bottom worse and hence fear and risk aversion even worse. I’m not just blaming government though. No one wanted to risk their money on the markets in 1932 anyway.
Had they passed the act before the bubble burst and repealed it after a crash, then the fear, loss and panic would have been much shorter. This is an example of the government being a part of the same herd as the populous. By the time all the money was lost. The people and the government decided that the bankers were to blame so we will restrict their actions. Yet before the crash the herd and the government were all about keeping the rally alive and giving more power to the bankers. Sound familiar?
I expect a similar response from governments as this crisis develops. Once the point of recognition is reached, I expect a switch to be turned. From that time on government policies will give up on returning to the old boom and will turn to being much more restrictive. Thus driving us deeper into depression. This is because the people/herd will demand it, because of the way they are feeling then.
Of course if the underlying theory is incorrect or the herd is not yet ready for a multi-generational turn down, then this will not occur.
ak, If I can add my 2 bobs worth, for what it’s worth. To me it appears you’re assuming that Governments are in control. IMO I don’t think they are and haven’t been for some time. I think huge multinational corporations pull many of the strings these days. Remember when Clinton was president he made this statement.
‘You mean to tell me I have to do what a bunch of F***ing bond traders say.’
Answer from his advisers ‘YES’.
BTB,
I agree that the scenario you have described is more than possible.
I especially like the sentences you wrote:
“These people are confusing the stock market with the real economy. To me that is an example of “how people feel”, not rationality being reflected in their decisions. I can live with the notion that government my pull a left field policy (no pun intended) that no one can predict. But I will not be relying on governments to save me. I believe governments have a long history of making matters worse. Not better.”
I am not saying that we will be saved by the government – but that there will be no outright collapse of the global economy just because of the next bout of the market panic – unless the governments refuse to pull another bailout. But why should they give up then? Who will stop the governments from handing cash over to the people?
Even if the customer sentiment reaches a new low – if the governments keeps giving people enough cash directly and buying services, the unemployment doesn’t have to exceed 20% because enough demand will be created. I agree – “people are confusing the stock market with the real economy”.
TAE wrote about a collapse of everything, infrastructure falling apart, hungry people roaming streets etc. We have to remind ourselves that we don’t live in the 1930-ties or during Bolshevik Revolution.
clive,
“I think huge multinational corporations pull many of the strings these days.”
How many of them have applied any pressure to stop the current round of bailouts? These who are rich can only benefit from the government interventions. The collapse will hurt them the most.
Small savers, lower-middle class – they will lose everything like in Argentina – but who cares?
On the topic of social mood, this piece from the WSJ via Slashdot cuaght my eye:
We’re Governed by Callous Children
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703363704574503631430926354.html
Small savers, lower-middle class – they will lose everything like in Argentina – but who cares?
Time to have a small gold hedge?
ak,
re – “You may not remember it – but I will never forget tanks on the streets in Poland in December 1981 what extended the life of communism by 8 years until it was orderly dismantled.”
I was 6 when this was happening, my dad worked in army HQ in Warsaw at the time. All due respect but I have to disagree and I think this is populist media talk playing to the current anti communist sentiment in Poland. If it wasn’t Polish tanks it would have been Russian tanks and I don’t this event contributed to the internal implosion of the USSR.
Steve,
By the proven economic principle of irony I think there will be a housing price crash while you are on your walk…
ak–TAE’s comment on the demise of everything was from an interview and people speak to each other in a casual and also more emphatic way to underline their thoughts. As such, the comments in absolute terms, but perhaps,even in the relative experience of anyone in the US in the last 20+ years, should not be read literally. Although there are plenty of US stories from the NY Times and Newsweek of people who have lost everything to sustain such a catastrophic view.
If, however, the comments had been submitted in an article or academic paper then scrupulous parsing and qualified criticism may be justified.
Hi Ak,
I think we are mostly in agreement. From what you are saying. The difference between you and TAE is that they think there will be a monumental crash and you think there may be more falls (even big ones) but the entire system won’t crash. The irony is that you have far more in common with TAE that 95% of the populous who do not expect any more crashes or problems.
It boils down to a divergence in conclusion.
What I have come to observe is that those that have been making predictions for a long time learn to be cunning in the way they make them. They create leeway (I do this more than I used too) and only tell half the story. They do this because it reduces their risk of being wrong. If half of their story plays out, they can then predict the rest later.
At one level TAE have been a bit naive for not tempering their predictions or at least placing some obvious caveats along the way. Also to lay out the most dire conclusion with no steps in between scares most people away. In saying that I do admire them for not soft peddling like most other commentators.
The other interesting point to note, is that if they are right they will receive nothing but fleeting Kudos that will be forgotten in no time at all. If they are wrong, they will be forgotten even quicker. In other words “it don’t matter a continental” (pun intended)
Bullturnedbear,
What you call making leeway I would call an acknowledgement of the fact that nothing in the economy is 100% predictable.
TruthIsThereIsNoTruth,
My point was just that tanks on Polish streets in 1981 saved the system – not that Jaruzelski or Kuklinski or whoever was a traitor or a national hero. I don’t care why they rolled the tanks or whether there would have been Soviet tanks instead or not. But they halted the process of the collapse of the communist system – and I hope you won’t dispute that.
The same thing happened in 1989 in China.
I wanted to emphasize that every country (including the US of course) has a plan how to deal with an internal or external threats. A major collapse of the financial system would be treated as an existential threat to the country – much more serious than for example a temporary disruption to the Internet backbone.
BTB,
One point you seem to forget is that the sentiment indicators are as rigged and corrupt as the GDP numbers.
Do you actually believe that 2% bulls at the bottom is real?
It is bulls8it and those indicators are used by the manipulators to pick the pockets of the moronic traders who think they are good traders and lose money all the time.
Remember that whatever is happening is a planned event and is happening because, lets call them Bernanke and co, want it to happen.
This is an engineered implosion and the HERD are part of the game, not the other way round.
ak,
I guess what I am trying to say that the system collapse was triggered by events in USSR, not sure if events in Poland in whatever way they turned out would have influenced the collapse in USSR in any significant way.
If Polish authorities didn’t stop the strikes USSR was ready to do it like in Chechoslovakia, at the time they were strong and bald enough to do that. If the USSR didn’t act at all what would have happened in Poland? – to be honest I don’t know enough details, but it will be a conversation I will have with my dad.
Welcome EW,
I do not believe in large scale conspiracies. Maybe at my peril. I am comfortable if you believe in conspiracies though. This belief is quite common and equally hard to disprove as by definition conspiracies must remain secret to be maintained.
Are you taking this perfect opportunity to buy more gold or short the $US?
TITINT,
I am only referring to 1980-1981 not to what happened later in 1988/1989.
The collapse of the communist system in Poland in 1981 would have been imminent if the army had not intervened. I don’t want to speculate on whether the Soviets were ready to roll their tanks or not – this is not relevant.
I agree that the final collapse was triggered by the failed attempt to reform the communist system in the USSR and that the system could have survived many more years (just look at Cuba or North Korea). This is exactly my point. People can’t just say “boo” and the system (capitalist or communist or any other) will collapse.
BTB,
Shorting the dollar will not insure me.
Gold is insurance and currency, money.
I short the dollar and the counterparty disappears ala Lehman, then i was not really right was i?
I was talking to everyone in my street the other day and there was about 15 of us.I kept insisting that the sky was purple and they all insisted that it was blue.
How silly are they? Being the contrarian and the only one on that side of this trade i knew that i was right.
Get the point BTB, throw all your technical indicators in the bin as well as your contrarian point of view when it comes to gold.
It is a market with no equal and i know that because Bernanke and co love gold.
Not wishing to take things too far off path – and also not really wishing to rehash what I’ve said on Bubblepedia over the last few days – I just want to pose a couple of teaser questions.
Is it possible that there is a link between Queensland Labor politician and PM, Kevin Rudd, the foreign investment decisions of Chinese businessmen, and the Australian property bubble?
(Afterall, each of these links can be considered at the very heart of his political power.)
And when is the last time that Rudd’s opponents were able to label him as too close to the Chinese (as was a feature of their strategy against him in his first year in power, and even before he was elected PM)?
Now that it’s mentioned, was it not completely predictable that Chinalco would never be able to take such a strong stake in one of our largest, indeed one of the world’s largest, mining companies?
I realise that this is going to land me in the “conspiracy theorists” camp. But the stuff between Rudd and the Chinese earlier in the year never seemed to ring true to me. He’s such a control freak and so tightly bound, he would never have made the mistake of shifting seats in full view of journalists. But recently the RE industry and the journalists quietly pointing towards strong Chinese demand for Aussie housing, at the same time not so strongly as to create a political backlash – just enough to create some tension in the investor market – it’s all been very interesting.
And I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a high probability that this has all been a very tricky strategy by a very clever politician.
http://www.bubblepedia.net.au/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=7&comments_parentId=2844
ak,
Ok I see your point. But you must admit once the iron fist disappeared the handover to Solidarity was peaceful and co-operative.
Ironically you could take a Marxian perspective and say that the collapse of the system was inevitable once it stopped (if it ever did, and arguably due to historical circumstances in Poland it did in the early days) improving the economic wellbeing of the people.