Googleanalytics

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Sins of the Past

Ben Bernanke has said many times that Marriner Eccles, the head of the Federal Reserve in 1936/37 made a mistake by tightening credit (raising reserve requirements). Bernanke blames Eccles’s actions for the 50% stock market collapse in 1937 and the second leg of the depression that followed.

Bernanke’s interpretation of Eccles’s actions is widely held by historians. It was FDR who first (conveniently) blamed the Fed. I think that Bernanke is also (conveniently) blaming Eccles. He is using history's interpretation to support his position that monetary policy must be set on MAX for the next three years. He has said that he will not make the same mistake that poor old Eccles made.

Eccles was in a bind. His job at the Fed was to maintain relative stability of prices and the stock of money. In the years prior to 1937 money flowed into the USA from Europe. This "flight capital" fled to the USA in the form of gold shipments. The money came because the holders of wealth were anticipating a major war. With gold reserves rising, so did the supply of money. M1 increased 55%, and money in demand accounts rose 71% from 1933 to 1936. More troubling were rising inflationary pressures. In the first six-months of 1936, wages rose by 11%. Wages in the critical steel industry rose by 33%. These conditions would scare any reasonable Central Banker.

The Fed itself answered the historical question of whether the Fed’s actions in 1936-37 was responsible for the 1937-38 double dip. In a research paper, (PDF Link) St. Louis Fed researcher Charles Calomiris concluded:

We find that despite being doubled, reserve requirements were not binding on bank reserve demand in 1936 and 1937, and therefore could not have produced a significant contraction in the money multiplier.

Much of today’s monetary policy is based on the historical interpretation of the consequences of the Fed’s actions. If the Fed was not to blame for the 1937 crash, then who/what was? In her book, “The Forgotten Man”, Amity Shlaes provides some answers. She points to a critical speech by then Treasury Secretary Morgenthau on November 10, 1936:

The war against the Depression had required deficit spending. But the emergency is ending, and the domestic problems we face today are essentially different from those which faced us four years ago. We want private business to expand. We believe that one of the most important ways of achieving these ends is to continue toward a balance in the federal budget.

Morgenthau’s comments 75 years ago (and the following cut backs in federal spending that took place in 1937) remind me of where we sit today. After four-years of spending like mad to fight the recession/depression of 2008, the federal government has committed itself to dramatic cuts in spending starting in January of 2013. Coupled with those cuts are across the board tax increases for every individual who has income.

In the book, Shlaes points to other factors that contributed to the crash of '37:

*The rapid rise of wages/raw materials in 36/37 led to a conclusion by many that corporations were going to face a profit squeeze. It was this threat that led to the 1937 stock market fall. We face a similar situation today. Rising commodity prices and global wages will impact consumers and company’s bottom line. (Think Apple and Foxconn)

*Social Security was collecting money from every paycheck by 1937. This reduced disposable income and contributed to the recession. This is not unlike what we face in 2013 when SS taxes are scheduled to rise by 2%.

*FDR wanted to balance the budget. He raised taxes in 1937; this was a big factor in the decline of the economy. We face the same scenario in 2013 when large increases in taxes are scheduled.

*In November of 1936 Nazi Germany signed the Anti-Comintern Act with Japan and Italy. While there were many like Neville Chamberlain, who ignored the evidence that a war was coming, the financial markets did not. This too, has similarities with 2012.

I think we are about to re-make many of the mistakes of 1936/37. The programmed spending cutbacks, couple with the many impending tax increases on 1/1/2013, will certainly cause a sharp contraction in economic activity.

Bernanke’s Fed has sworn that it won’t make the mistakes of 1936/37. But I've shown (and the Fed’s own research confirms) that Fed policy was not the cause of the '37 crash. Bernanke is relying on a false interpretation of history to justify his monetary policy today.

We will face an economic slowdown due to lower federal spending, and at the same time, inflation will be rising as a result of the excessively loose monetary policy. Stagflation is in our future. Should this be the result, the historians will say that both the Fed and fiscal policy are to blame. In other words, we have not learned a thing from our past mistakes.
.

11 comments:

  1. Excellent piece!

    As the whole world embraced Keynesian, fiscal expanionary policies at the same time back in 08, which mathematically had to have been accompanied, albeit with a slight time lag, by an accelerating rate of monetization to the point where fiscal restraint became necessary, so too will the fiat currecny presses of the world stop. With a competitive race to the bottom neutralizing even short-term economic benefits, the effect will be not just stagflation; it will be an inflationary depression. The price of human essentials will explode around the globe in all currencies, except gold and discretionary spending will totally collapse, even by the 1% whose spending as a percentage of income on essentials will rise, but be relatively inconsequential, but whom at the margin will be hoarding their presumed liquidity. The entire globe could not be expanding deficits at the same time, so to the entire globe cannot sustain an economic expansion of even modest means, even one accompanied by massive inflation in essential goods. We have unleashed a demon beyond our comprehension; it will either destroy us or make us stronger in the rebuilding. It is anyone’s guess right now, but certainly, Ben Bernanke and his global reflationsistas will be vilified before the end.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm willing to vilify The Ben Bernank sooner than that :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k&feature=player_embedded

    ReplyDelete
  3. "In November of 1936 Nazi Germany signed the Anti-Comintern Act with Japan and Italy. While there were many like Neville Chamberlain, who ignored the evidence that a war was coming". This is Churchill's version; and it is completely false. In 1936, Chamberlain was still Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he pushed for an expansion of the Royal Air Force even though he had made his political reputation by balancing the budget in 1934. Chamberlain's insistence that Britain rearm and not with battleships but with Spitfires and Hurricanes took great political courage. So did Chamberlain's willingness to accept the humiliation of Munich. The British were in no position to defend the Czechs, and the French were adamant that they would not go to war over the Sudetenland. By temporizing Chamberlain gained the necessary time for Britain to increase its aircraft production to the point where Britain was producing more fighter aircraft than Germany. Even so, Churchill almost managed to undo Chamberlain's work by insisting that more and more fighter squadrons be sent to France, where they would be (and were) completely outnumbered. That folly was only stopped because Dowding refused; and Park and Newall backed him up. Churchill somehow managed to eliminate almost all mention of Dowding from his history of WW II even though Dowding was Commander of RAF Fighter Command throughout the Battle of Britain. On the other hand, Churchill was effusive in his praise of Bomber Harris, who had wanted Chamberlain to switch all pre-war aircraft funding from fighters to bombers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr. Krasting,

    You write "Social Security was collecting money from every paycheck by 1937. This reduced disposable income and contributed to the recession. This is not unlike what we face in 2013 when SS taxes are scheduled to rise by 2%."

    I don't see why collecting Social Security tax from A to give to B would reduce disposable income overall. It would only shift disposable income from A to B.

    Any bad effect would come from reducing the investment of A in order to provide consumption to B. Decreased investment would result in decreased economic growth over the following years, but not an immediate recession.

    As for 2013, resuming the 2% higher tax collection for SSec would also fund the consumption of Social Security recipients. It would reduce government borrowing by $150 billion per year.

    Any bad effects of increased taxes in 2013 and following years comes from taxing productive people, to pay to retired people, and increasing the consumption and cost of health care for everyone.

    There will be even less investment, and less consumption of enjoyable goods (houses, travel, restaurant meals, entertainment) in favor of the consumption of health care and the less-productive work of a giant, government, health care bureaucracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a light problem with your analysis. It is not merely a shift "from A to B".

      The point is, B gets SS benefit regardless if A pays SS tax or because SS benefit is now a mandatory spending. That is, the Federal Government is required by law to pay out the benefits with or without tax revenue. This will remain the case until the law changes, which can be an eternity.

      In addition, SS now has a surplus (not sure it can maintain so forever). So it can pay out the benefits (now). Anyway B does not depend on A at all. B does not get anything less because of the SS tax holiday.

      In summary, the 2% restoration of SS tax is a net off A's income.

      Delete
    2. To George H,
      When the government pays out a benefit to B, the money comes from (1) A's taxes, (2) borrowing from A (selling treasury bonds to A), or (3) from creating more money (selling bonds to the Federal Reserve). Disposable income goes up in the amount given to B. What else happens to disposable income?

      Case (1): A pays taxes, reducing his disposable income. Overall, no change. Worse, it may reduce A's investment in the economy.

      Case (2): Government borrows from A. A's investment with the government is converted into higher disposable income for B, but that investment disappears from the economy. This is worse for the economy than an equal decrease in A's spending, because it affects future production and income.

      Case (3): B gets newly created money. This seems like a free way to increase B's disposable income, in the beginning. Soon, the extra money raises prices and is effectively a tax, a real reduction in everyone's disposable income. Total, real disposable income is not affected.

      You may be interested that there is nothing of value in the Social Security Trust Fund. That money (value) was collected in tax and immediately spent long ago.

      Ponzy Schemes Like Social Security

      Delete
  5. GLD & SLV

    http://sheepgetslaughtered.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bruce - Your blog has reached the Florida Fishing Forum. Someone quoted you there yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Conscience of a ConservativeFebruary 29, 2012 4:59 PM

    Couple of points.
    I believe the Fed looks at the stock market too much and a perceived wealth effect from rising valuations and under-appreciates the negative income effect of lower interest rates especially at the zero bound.
    Additionally if gov't is thought of as a service provider, then it always needs to rationalize what it does and offer it at the best possible price, something that I believe is missing from the current equation.
    I can't see how anything the Fed or the gov't is doing is addressing the underlying competitiveness or lack there of our economy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You have provided good and clear analysis. Have you considered what will happen when China decided to back their YUAN with GOLD? They are the largest gold producer, they are buying gold on the world market, they are encouraging their citizens to buy gold (This becomes a place to take gold from Chinese citizens later without cost to the Chinese govt.) and they are buying into all the good gold mines.

    With a gold-backed YUAN, their currency will become a World Reserve Currency. Will the dollar be able to remain another World Reserve Currency when this happens.

    If not, then the cost of most thing in the USA will soon increase by 25%. If the USA has to buy oil in YUANs, then the cost of oil will increase by over 25%.

    By deciding to drill in the God-forsaken, ugly, barren, delta in Alaska called ANWAR, building the Canadian pipeline and opening up exploration lease sales now, the USA can avoid future oil price increases. And one more item must be added to this mix. We must tax oil or gasoline produced in the USA if it is exported. That would make it more profitable for the oil companies to only sell their oil in the USA.

    GOLD prices will increase in the near future. How much will depend, In my opinion, on the USA energy policy.

    And I continue to worry about the Fed DEVALUING THE DOLLAR.

    And that's the way I see it...
    Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

    ReplyDelete