The Forgotten Bubble

Over the years I've heard of a new story about the 1920s. Mostly in class comments or in the papers of my undergraduate students. First in Utah, now here at Bucknell. The notion is that the 1920-21 recession was solved by laissez-faire policies. This fits the revisionist view about the Great Depression defended by Amity Shlaes and others. In other words, the depression was prolonged by the New Deal policies (I discussed those here).

A new book by James Grant, The Forgotten Depression, suggests exactly that the recovery in 1922 was the result of the lack of government intervention. The notion is that there was no fiscal stimulus, and yet the economy recovered. By the way, the book also suggests that the cause of the recession was the Fed's policy. I guess it was the first Fed caused crisis in this view, in line with Friedman's explanation of the Depression as the Great Contraction.

There is a relatively well-know and established story about the 1920s recovery and boom, which does not suggest that laissez-faire is a good idea. It suggests that it was a consumption boom associated to a bubble, and, hence, unsustainable leading to a collapse. The 1920s is when debt-driven consumption of mass produced goods became the norm, and when a whole set of new goods were available for the middle class (e..g cars, refrigerators, radios, etc.). A good description of that story can be found in Livingstone here (subscription required). In other words, in spite of wage stagnation, worsening income distribution, and lack of government stimulus the roaring twenties were possible as a result of private debt accumulation. And you know how well that ended.

There was also a housing bubble. Ahmad Borazan, who is working on these topics at the University of Utah, pointed out to me the paper by Eugene White on national housing bubble that bursted in 1926. In that respect it is worth noticing that bubbles and speculation on land were central for almost all booms and busts in the 19th century, as seen in the figure below.

Note that there were financial crashes in 1819, 1837 and 1857, often associated to higher rates of interest in the UK, the main financial center back then, and to the collapse of commodity and asset prices. Housing bubbles seem to be the modern version of land speculation, when the frontier has vanished, and they seem to have played a role in the Great Depression and the last crisis.

PS: Figure above comes from Reynolds Nelson's A Nation of Deadbeats.

What can we learn from the Depression?

Free Exchange has discussed in a recent post the academic views on the Great Depression. They suggest that recent research (say the last 20 years or so) has produced a different view, and "that many traditional views about the causes of the Depression have been overturned by academics in recent decades." In particular, they suggest that neither protectionism nor the financial crash are seen as central anymore. They correctly note that the dominant view, associated to Barry Eichengreen and Peter Temin,* now puts an emphasis on the effects of the Gold Standard (note that Keynes also emphasized the role of the Gold Standard, to which he referred to as a 'barbarous relic'). 

And by the way that means that the consensus is that a demand shock caused the Depression. Note that a few authors have pushed the Real Business Cycle (RBC) story in recent times. For example, Prescott argues that:

“In the 1930s, there was an important change in the rules of the economic game. This change lowered the steady-state market hours. The Keynesians had it all wrong. In the Great Depression, employment was not low because investment was low. Employment and investment were low because labor market institutions and industrial policies changed in a way that lowered normal employment.”

In other words, the changes in incentives led to less supply of labor and less demand for investment goods by firms. Same ideas have been put forward by Cole and Ohanian, and by popularizers like Amity Shlaes in her The Forgotten Man. However, most of the New Deal regulations that the revisionists abhor, actually came to late to have caused the Depression. They generally try to explain the 'slow' recovery (growth averaged 8% in the first FDR term) as a result of the New Deal, and leave the question of what was the supply side shock that caused the Depression.

Lucas, who converted to RBC at some point in the 1980s, asked (cited here) poignantly: "Where is the productivity shock that cuts output in half in that period? Is it a flood or a hurricane? If it really happened, shouldn't we be able to see it in the data?" For that reason Lucas still believes, like Friedman, that the Fed did it. And if one is going to blame regulation for the duration of the Depression, one must deal with the fact that in the 1950s, if anything, labor and financial regulations were as stringent, if not more, than in the 1930s and unemployment was fairly low.

A more subtle critique of the conventional view, and its emphasis on the Gold Standard comes from Christina Romer. She suggests that the path of American output and unemployment before 1931 can be explained quite well with only domestic factors, and that even after 1931, international factors affected American economic conditions mainly through their impact on American policy decisions. Note that that this is not incompatible with Kindleberger's view that the US, in the process of becoming the hegemon, was central for the global economic collapse.

This should cast some doubts on FE's conclusion that:

"putting all the blame on Wall Street for the Great Depression -- or on bankers in the current crisis -- does not stand up to historical scrutiny. The responsibility may more properly lie in a complex combination of factors, like how global financial systems are structured."

Romer notes that in the US the collapse in consumption was more important than in other economies (harking back to Peter Temin's reply to Friedman that it was the collapse in consumption, not monetary policy, that caused the Depression). And the collapse in the demand for consumer durables, which depended on credit for their purchase, was affected by financial conditions. Romer argues:

“Both the initial recession in the United States in the summer of 1929 and the acceleration of the decline in late 1929 and 1930 are ultimately attributable to the stock market boom and bust of the late 1920s. The stock market boom is the prime explanation for why the Federal Reserve was pursuing tight monetary policy starting in 1928. The stock market crash is the prime source for the collapse in durable goods purchases starting in November 1929.”

So the financial bubble and the crash did matter, and John Kenneth Galbraith (among others) was correct about it. I would add that income distribution, which we know from Piketty and Saez, was as bad in the 1920s as now, did also play a role in the bubble and the expansion of private indebtedness. So Wall Street was to blame indeed, as much as it should be too in the recent Great Recession.

* Kindleberger, in his classic The World in Depression, goes further and suggests that it was the absence of an hegemon that acted as a source of demand in situations of crises (distressed markets), as a stabilizer of exchange rates, and as a source of international finance (an international lender of last resort) that caused  the Depression, since the UK was incapable and the US unwilling to assume that position. The Depression was essentially an hegemonic crisis.

PS: For further reading my forthcoming paper in the Cambridge Journal of Economics here.

Amity Shlaes is a Keynesian after all!



Amity Shlaes has argued that the New Deal made things worse in the United States, prolonging the Great Depression in her popular book The Forgotten Men (for a devastating critique go here or here). Now she tells us that it was not so. True to her conservative convictions she argues that nation building abroad is a good thing. The explanation of why nation building is actually a good thing is where she gets confused and argues on the basis of Keynesian logic.

She says that countries that were occupied by American troops grew faster, and even uses the multiplier effect to show the consequences of troop withdrawals. She is aware that this is a bit dangerous, and suggests that "the usual explanation for the growth would be the multiplier effect. ... but multiplier effects don’t last, just as stimuli don’t last at home." Hence, even though the multiplier works, it does not work forever.

So her point is that if the multiplier has only limited effects then it is not a Keynesian argument! The notion that the multiplier effect is based on public choice (Mancur Olson) and not on her bête noire John Maynard Keynes –  whose ideas she describes as "sheer fallacies" (2008, p. 272) –  is farfetched.

The multiplier, developed by Keynes student and disciple Richard Kahn, says exactly that spending generates income, and leads to higher levels of output and employment. And of course it does not imply that the effects are unlimited, but only that they are positive (she used to argue that they were negative reducing growth, as in the New Deal).

Even if you say, like she does, that the multiplier only works in the short run or more precisely for a limited period of time, and then you need confidence or trust to maintain growth, it is still the initial spending that kick started the growth process. And yes she even gets that confidence is the result of the initial spending, and not vice versa. At the end of the day, she basically thinks Military Keynesianism works abroad. Perhaps the United States should invade the United States, and start nation building at home.