Politics : Award Winning Viewpoints from Liberal Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory

Wednesday 5 January 2011

The Great Recession?



The philosopher, George Santayana, in his work The Life of Reason said that 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' It is an argument that I regularly hear recycled to justify the teaching of history. It has even been cited by visitors to this blog. As the recent Auschwitz debate showed - it is a powerful mantra. Unfortunately, it seems to have passed George Osborne by. With every step that the Coalition takes towards rectifying the budget deficit, I can't help but wonder whether our Government wouldn't benefit from a history lesson:

At the beginning of 1937, the US President Franklin D Roosevelt, could feel proud. His 'New Deal' reforms had pulled his country from the brink of utter despair caused by the Great Depression. His administration had created a framework of welfare and union rights that ushered in a new relationship between business and the 'common man.' In 1936 he had won a second term by a larger margin than any President in over a century. In his second inaugural address he felt able to boast that, "we have come far from the days of stagnation and despair. Vitality has been preserved. Courage and confidence have been restored. Mental and moral horizons have been extended."

Yet in little over a year the economic recovery and the New Deal coalition of the liberal North and conservative South were in tatters. Four million people lost their jobs and unemployment, which had dropped from 25% to 14%, rose back to 19%. Industrial production fell by 33 percent, national income dropped by 12 percent, and industrial stock prices plummeted by 50 percent. In Congress the conservative 'Southern Democrats' deserted Roosevelt and no more 'progressive' New Deal legislation was passed after June 1937. In the rest of the country Republicans were gaining ground.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Franklin D Roosevelt
Having been happy for the government to step in to save capitalism most of American big business were looking to see Roosevelt step aside and let them again take control once again. For the first time since 1929 the conservative forces in the US were able to combine behind a coherent programme of opposition. The 'Conservative Manifesto' denounced strikes, demanded lower taxes, a balanced budget, defended the rights of private enterprise against government reform and warned of the dangers of creating a permanently dependent welfare class. Sound familiar? The New Deal came under a concerted attack from inside and out.

The cause of the "Roosevelt recession" occurred largely because the President, along with some of his advisers - led by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau - were determined to balance the federal budget and control imaginary inflationary pressures. The result was a decision to reduce government spending. In 1936, the government contributed $4.1 billion to consumer purchasing power, versus less than $1 billion in 1937. Furthermore, regressive taxes were eating into the national income and reducing consumption from the poorest part of society.

The economy seemed ready to plunge into an even deeper recession than in 1930. This and the potential loss of seats in Congress, forced FDR to change course. Influenced by the British economist, John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Roosevelt came to believe that government spending on relief and public works would revive the economy—even if such spending produced ever larger deficits. Their rationale for this approach was that the depression was the product of under-consumption and that putting money in the hands of consumers—"priming the pump"—would stimulate consumer spending and perk up the economy. Accordingly, FDR asked Congress for a $5 billion relief program, which passed in the spring and summer of 1938.

The sums involved were not large enough to completely solve the consumption problems but they did stave off a deeper recession. In the end it was not the moderate 'priming' of the New Deal but the huge government spending that the Second World War required that finally pulled America out of the depression. However, many broad lessons had been learnt and the extensive financial regulatory framework introduced by Roosevelt was not repealed until 1999. The repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks. I think we now understand why that legislation was necessary.

But the big lesson is: 'Don't cut public spending or raise regressive taxes (like VAT) in a recession!'


    6 comments:

    1. The difference between America then and Britain now is that America had a lot of industry and so could "produce" her way out of debt and recession. We don't ! What does Britain make? Very little actually. Even the Dyson is now produced in the Far East, so of little concequence to our economy, other than being added to the long list of imported goods we rely on!
      I'm sure someone is going to come along and slate my simplistic view, since I'll be the first to admit, I'm no economist. But, if I owe money, there is two ways to pay it back, cut back on my spending ooooorrrrr get a second job. So I either save more to pay back my debt or make more to pay back my debt. Clearly, doing both would mean I would pay my debt back twice as quick.
      The consumerism that worked for American economy, would be of little benefit to us since the goods we consume are actually benefiting other economies, not our own. We need to move away from services and get back to making stuff.
      I am hoping that you are wrong (and it is nothing more than a hope)and that the cut backs will get us out of the hole we are in. Also, people need to look at their own behaviour and modify their spending, especially spending on crap. The other week I saw a jar at the super market, which seemed to contain a preserved alien. I picked up to examine, it was albino asparagus from Chile!!!! I am a cave man I admit, but does anyone know of a person who has gone shopping for this perticular product?? "oh my God no albino asparagus, my recipe is ruined!"
      We are in debt and have no other way of getting out other than not spending as much as we used to. We need to make more.

      ReplyDelete
    2. I am trying to "make" something at the moment, a mass produced product. It is impossible to make something in the UK without extortionate costs...labour!!! much cheaper in countries with unregulated economies and no employment law, cottage industry please and careful considered soulful work...apprenticeships...mentoring for the young.. and as for the state....needs to be an employer...not farming it's duties out to profit driven capitalists

      ReplyDelete
    3. I understand about labour costs, but the cost in pollution must be huge, shipping stuff all that way. Mind you Germany is managing fine, despite labour costs. And I agree with your comments on the state being an employer and cottage industies. We just have to rethink the way we make our living.

      ReplyDelete
    4. Targetted governemnt spending is a very effective way of getting the economy moving and one of the ways to pay off the debt would be to generate economic growth which would increase tax revenues.

      I think the Coalition is making a grave error - all the evidence suggests that we should not make such stringent cuts - it is ideological and vindictive assault on the public sector and the resultant job losses are going to knock the economy back massively.

      Anonymous, thanks for your comment - can you give yourself a name so we can follow your contributions. Joe

      ReplyDelete
    5. When the country did make things there were also apprenticeships, jobs that required skills rather than a 'formal' education. It meant all in society were able to contribute. Now everyone needs to go to university to have a chance of a job, many cant afford it. Apprenticeships don't exist for many employers )(they cant afford it and dont see the point as they expect to lay people off). Govt job cuts mean a higher benefits bill, but that has been cut - therefore a higher number of people chasing fewer and fewer jobs with less qualifications. this stems from aggressive privatisation policies in the 80s, deliberatly targetting certain industries as they were deemed too powerful (miners?, not supporting heavy industry when it was possible (ship building) and generally ruining the prospects of many >>> tory policy at its finest

      ReplyDelete
    6. Kitey,
      Labour has had plenty of opportunity to reverse such policies and have not bothered. It's just a lack of vision from our leadership, full stop.

      ReplyDelete