Blog

The Forgotten Depression

Most people in this country have probably never heard of The Forgotten Depression, the title of a new book by James Grant. Unlike the Great Depression which started in 1929 and lasted until 1941 (in the US), the forgotten depression lasted only eighteen months, from January 1920 until July 1921. 

But it was certainly severe.  According to Grant, “[t]he nation’s output in 1920-21 suffered a decline of 23.9 per cent in nominal terms, 8.7 per cent in real terms.  From cyclical peak to trough, producer prices fell by 40.8 per cent, industrial production by 31.6 per cent, stock prices by 46.6 per cent and corporate profits by 92 per cent.”  Not since the early 19th century had prices fallen so far or so fast as in 1920-21. 

Why was it over so quickly?  Because the successive administrations of Woodrow Wilson and Warren Harding did things that most 21st century economists would regard as disastrous.  Confronted with plunging prices, incomes and employment, the government cut spending and balanced the budget.  These responses enabled the economy to recover quickly. 

They followed the policy that Murray Rothbard urged in his history of America’s Great Depression: “If a government wishes to alleviate, rather than aggravate, a depression, its only valid course is laissez-faire – to leave the economy alone. Only if there is no interference, direct or threatened, with prices, wage rates and business liquidation, will the necessary adjustment proceed with smooth dispatch.”

Prices and wages in the forgotten depression stopped falling when they became low enough to entice consumers into shopping, investors into committing capital and employers into hiring.  That is how the price mechanism is supposed to work.  To business people who had grown up familiar with the idea of laissez-faire, the government’s approach did not destroy confidence but, on the contrary, actually enhanced it.

President Wilson, a Democrat, was no advocate of laissez-faire. In the summer of 1919 he apparently told friends: “I am perfectly sure that the state has got to control everything that everyone needs and uses.” But in September 1919 Wilson had a serious stroke.  From an economic point of view, that turned out to be a stroke of luck!  The government that during the First World War had seemed to be everywhere now became inactive. It “did nothing in particular and did it very well.”

Wilson’s successor, Warren Harding, a Republican, was an advocate of laissez-faire.  He favoured low taxes and minimal government intervention.  By the time he gave his Inaugural Address in March 1921, the depression was nearing its end after fifteen months.  To Harding and Andrew Mellon, his Secretary of the Treasury, the situation called for reduced federal spending as well as lower tax rates.  In 1922 federal outlays fell to $3.3 billion, compared with $5.1 billion the previous year. 

Harding died in August 1923, 27 months after taking office. His successor, Calvin Coolidge, won the 1924 Presidential Election (though not by as large a margin as Harding) and followed the same economic policy.

But the Hoover administration that followed Coolidge early in 1929 took a very different line: It initiated a programme of unprecedented federal activism to head off the threatened economic downturn.  After the 1929 Crash, the government’s policy was wage support to “protect the nation’s buying power”.  Hoover boasted: “For the first time in the history of great slumps, we have had no substantial reduction in wages.”   

In 1921, 92 per cent of reporting firms had reduced wages, but only 7 per cent did so in 1930.  By late 1931 real average hourly earnings in manufacturing had increased more than 10 per cent – and manufacturing hours worked had fallen by more than 40 per cent.  As a result of this and other misguided policies of Hoover, followed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Great Depression was to last a further ten years until 1941.

The evidence from these two serious American Depressions suggests that laissez-faire works, if politicians and people believe in it, while government interference – though undoubtedly well-meant – does not. The moral? Let the market work!

Comments (1)
Thank you David for adding onto my reading list. What was implied but left unsaid in your post, however, was that the 21st century policy makers are very good at kicking the can further and further in the long grass. But at the onset of the next recession that will inevitably come in a not too distant of a future, the policy makers will no longer have the customary fiscal and monetary stimulus tools available to them. It's very difficult to stimulate an economy with a starting point of negative interest rates, even though the impact of interest rates on investment is debatable itself as a concept. The longer that market forces are not allowed to act and correct imbalances, the harder the adjustment when the time comes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.

As in all IEA publications, the views expressed in this blog are those of the authors and not those of the Institute (which has no corporate view), its managing trustees, Academic Advisory Council or senior staff.

Previous blog posts

Search

Philip Booth
27 February 2015
4 comments

The Greens have a radical policy agenda which would, if implemented, probably involve a huge transfer of power from the people to the state. The Greens must, however, be given credit for clearly...
David Henderson
26 February 2015
1 comment

Better days at the FT In an earlier piece (7 January), I criticised staffers at the Financial Times (FT) for persistently quoting misleading figures for the GDP of a range of developing countries. In...
Steve Davies
25 February 2015
4 comments

One of the recurring features of what we may call ‘popular economics’ in this country is the hostility to ticket touts. For most of the public they rank close to the bottom of social...
Ryan Bourne
25 February 2015
1 comment

Aside from the much-expected arms race to win the pensioner vote with a host of taxpayer-funded goodies, all parties (bar maybe UKIP) seem to agree that ‘childcare’ is something deserving...
Ryan Bourne
24 February 2015
comments

In an age of big challenges, the general election campaign seems to be throwing up a host of small ideas. The Labour Party is currently quibbling internally over how to finance a policy of cutting...
Christopher Snowdon
24 February 2015
comments

As Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles has long taken a principled stand against what he calls 'government lobbying government' and 'lobbying on the...
Kristian Niemietz
23 February 2015
comments

Among the more reasonable supporters of the single-payer model of healthcare, a common argument is that while the NHS may not literally be the ‘envy of the world’, at least it is better...
Matt Zwolinski
20 February 2015
3 comments

Some of the currently most popular forms of libertarian thought are defined by a commitment to the “non-aggression principle” – a principle which holds that it is always wrong to...
Philip Booth
19 February 2015
1 comment

In response to an article for The Tablet on Oxfam’s wealth inequality figures, Mr Fuentes-Nieva, Head of Research at Oxfam, makes some counterpoints in a letter to The Tablet (also repeated in...
Ryan Bourne
18 February 2015
1 comment

Forget all the populist welfare crackdowns dominating the election headlines over the past week. These are small fry compared to the gargantuan task of rolling out the government’s long-awaited...
Diego Zuluaga
17 February 2015
comments

Tomorrow, Financial Markets Commissioner Lord Hill will be releasing his much-awaited Green Paper on creating a Capital Markets Union (CMU) in the EU. One of the landmark initiatives of the Juncker...
Ralph Buckle
16 February 2015
comments

In our chapter for the IEA‘s latest monograph Brexit: Directions for Britain Outside the EU, Tim Hewish and I argue that, if Britain were to leave the EU, its first port of call when seeking...
Christopher Snowdon
16 February 2015
12 comments

Robert Peston, the BBC’s economics editor, has recently made his contribution to the rapidly growing genre of polemical inequality documentaries with the ‘The Price of Inequality’...
Philip Booth
13 February 2015
comments

Those who wish to cut government arts funding are often branded ‘philistines’. But there is a difference between appreciating the arts and believing that the state should support the arts...
Ryan Bourne
12 February 2015
comments

‘Dear chief secretary, I’m afraid to tell you there’s no money left’. That twelve-word note left in the Treasury from Liam Byrne, Labour’s former Chief Secretary to the...
Richard Wellings
11 February 2015
3 comments

Britain’s railways were privatised in the mid-1990s. This did not however mean an end to state control. The government tightly regulated the sector, imposing price controls on a high proportion...
Ryan Bourne
10 February 2015
1 comment

The war of words between Boots and the Labour Party has led to much political soul-searching. The salient question seems to be: ‘is Labour anti-business?’ This is not particularly...
Philip Booth and Ryan Bourne
9 February 2015
1 comment

In a recent CapX article, Tim Montgomerie sought to outline ‘10 things that capitalism needs but cannot provide’. There was much to agree with in his article, but we are puzzled by his...
Diego Zuluaga
6 February 2015
comments

The sovereign debt crisis that gripped the euro zone in 2011-12 threw into the spotlight the problems with a currency union lacking fiscal transfers between members and the mutualisation of their...