Thursday, October 22, 2015

The Great Depression was caused by obscene wealth concentration and cured with a partial redistribution.

The Great Depression really was a perfect storm caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.

Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. FDR was elected in order to repair the damage done by his conservative predecessor. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a public works program and MUCH higher taxes on the rich. This effectively redistributed a significant portion of actual buying power from the rich back to the lower majority. 

Unemployment declined every year from 1933-1940 except 1938 when FDR listened to the GOP and cut back on the New Deal. GDP grew every year except 1938. The rest of the world was in free fall. Without government spending it would have been total collapse in America as well.

Unemployment (% labor force) 1933 24.9 1934 21.7 1935 20.1 1936 16.9 1937 14.3 1938 19 1939 17.1 1940 14.5

Percent change GDP 1933 -4% 1934 15% 1935 10% 1936 13% 1937 9% 1938 -7% 1939 7% 1940 9%

The necessary and vital transfer of wealth from the rich back to the lower majority was well underway and hugely successful in terms of GDP and unemployment by 1940. GDP had been restored and the unemployment rate had been cut by over 10% in spite of the 1938 setback. The most severe depression in US history was officially over in 1939. The most fiscally liberal economic policies in US history were a proven success. The progress made in FDR's first two terms continued and accelerated with WWII. With so many men in the service and so many women on the production line, an additional unemployment drop of 2.2% over the annual trend of 2.6% was achieved resulting in a 4.8% drop to a rate of 9.7% in 1941. 

With immediate and significant progress made the first year of his Presidency and 7 out of 8 consecutive years, his first two terms, ultimately ending the depression in 1939, FDR proved that unlike his fiscally conservative predecessor Herbert Hoover, he knew and understood what had to be done. His liberal policies fully intended and designed to redistribute wealth from rich to poor resulted in a full return of GDP, several double digit annual increases and a double digit reduction in unemployment rates over his first two terms thereby ending the Great Depression. This was achieved under the most difficult circumstances in modern history.

Only a die-hard conservative coward would have the gall to suggest that FDR's economic policies were anything less than successful. After all, there is only one place in the universe where a 'quick' recovery from a record wealth concentrated and severe depression like that which FDR inherited from Herbert Hoover in 1933 is even possible.

That place is Fantasy Land.

FDR's liberal economic policies were such a success and so well appreciated that he was re-elected to a record 4 consecutive terms. Three of which were landslide victories.

Mariner Eccles, Chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR, the most fiscally liberal, the most successful, the most proven right, the most beloved and the most re-elected President in US history had this to say about the Great Depression and the related wealth concentration:

"The United States economy is like a poker game where the chips have become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and where the other fellows can stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit runs out the game will stop."

Keep in mind, the above quote is of a man who along with FDR was PROVEN RIGHT.

Proven right two full years BEFORE the US was dragged into WWII.

With FDR's liberal economic policies still in place and those higher taxes on the rich to help pay for WWII, more US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the lower majority from whom it was reaped. The high income taxes on the rich were left in place for many years even after FDR died. This redistribution of wealth continued until the late seventies. By 1979, the richest 1 percent held less than 20% of US wealth. This was less than 1/2 of their previous high of 44% in 1929. The lower majority held the rest.

There you have it. Liberal economic policies were proven hugely successful in response to the Greatest Depression in US history and over a period of four decades to follow. Wealth redistribution, with or without the massive government stimulus known as war, is the only answer to wealth concentration. It has been proven to work wonders. This is true regardless of legitimate growth or wealth creation. Heavy concentrations are an absolute deal breaker. Just like they were in 1929.

Unfortunately, a bad actor took the office of President in 1981. He cut those taxes drastically on the rich. Here we are 34 years later. The richest one percent of US households now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity.

America's income and wealth have once again reached a very dangerous level of concentration.

"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide and is growing so fast that it may eventually threaten the stability of Democratic Capitalism itself.". -Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve under four administrations testifying before Congress. 

Again, the richest 1% of US households hold over 40% of our nation's total wealth. They are within striking distance of their record high of 44% in 1929, the first year of the Greatest Depression in US history.

The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. They are more sold out than ever. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.

For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people.

By the way, the non-partisan CBO (Congressional Budget Office) just recently did the math and confirmed that government stimulus will be necessary, get this and get it good, FOREVER. One of the primary factors hindering growth according to the CBO, is, you may want to sit down for this one critics, that's right, THE HIGH CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH.

The Greater Depression will be underway by 2020 at the very latest. Sooner and more severe if we end up with more conservative economic policies.

Greed kills. It will be our downfall.

2 comments:

  1. Let me first say, I have become a fan of yours, as I agree w/your views about the need for the redistribution of wealth & income in this country. Mankind is still suffering from the disease of greed & until it is cured through moral & ethical enlightenment, most people will continue to suffer the symptoms of this disease. I also agree we had relative long term stability from the end of the Great Depression until Republican President Ronald Reagan took office. Not only did he lower the taxes on the rich, but he also deregulated the banks. These regulations had been put in place as a result of the Great Depression & provided long term stability afterwards for the average American worker which is most of the US population. Under deregulation, banker’s began engaging in more highly speculative investing leading to the roller coastering real estate market & to the 2008 real estate & business meltdown. Additionally, w/Reagan’s quadrupling of the military budget, & other spending, he took this country for the first time since WW1 from being a creditor nation to being a debtor nation.

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 16, (1985) The United States has become a debtor nation for the first time since World War I, owing foreigners more than they owe it, a Commerce Department report indicated today.
    http://www.nytimes.com/1985/09/17/business/us-turns-into-debtor-nation.html

    However, I do not agree with your analysis of what ended the Great Depression or when it ended in this country, & it is still debated whether FDR’s Programs helped or hindered recovery. I would say some helped, while other’s hindered, but essentially recovery came about, unfortunately, as a result of WW2 & the subsequent rebuilding of the somewhat decimated European continent. The jobs created by the New Deal were temporary & very low paying. They only provided short term jobs until these men were able to find other more permanent & higher paying jobs. This did not occur until after the war when Europe turned to us for the funds, materials, & for the production of goods needed to rebuild. When Europeans went to work rebuilding, it created the necessary type of more permanent higher paying jobs on both continents, & the economy roared to life once again. If FDR’s programs had been the answer, the Great Depression would not have lasted for over a decade, & I believe, if there had not been a war, it would have continued under FDR’s programs until a we achieved a better understanding of economics or a more viable solution presented itself.

    I do not believe Trump would make a good president, as he is addicted to big business & does not understand the plight of the now even middle class let alone the poor. His actions have all been part of that leading to the concentration of wealth & income into the hands of the fewer. We need a president with the knowledge & common sense to reinstitute the regulations that provided long term economic stability for the average American worker, that will place significantly higher taxes on the rich, provide protection for the environment, provide access for everyone to high quality education & health care (Obamacare is not working), & steer this country into more moral & ethical ways of living. All such measures would interfere w/Trump’s worship of his god, big business.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've noticed your comments on the web also. I've marked up a number of them. It's nice to have so much common ground. Let me address the points on which we disagree.

      The Great Depression was three years old when FDR took office. A lot of ground had been lost. The economic engine was running on fumes. It simply did not have enough power to move the truck forward. The economy was still in free-fall. FDR's New Deal created millions of jobs, the infusion of new currency helped prime the pump and much higher tax rates prevented the rich from siphoning too much fuel for themselves. All of this was necessary to address the extremely high concentration of wealth and buying power.

      With a near full return of GDP and a 10 percent drop in unemployment by 1940 in spite of the 1938 setback, it was clear that the economy was once again growing. I agree that many of the jobs initially created were temporary but they were the prime in the pump. They were necessary to get the engine running on it's own fuel. That is not to say that the truck had made it's way all the way back up the hill but it had made up most of it's lost ground. Sorry, I don't have a nice analogy to represent full employment but I do know that it lingers far behind the other economic indicators. I'm not aware of a single exception to that rule.

      WWII was like a nitro boost for the economy but that nitro didn't start the engine. It only increased the RPMs. When that boost ran out with the end of WWII, the rebuilding effort you refer to provided a second boost to compensate for the jobs lost in 1945. Without it, the engine probably would have run at lower RPMs but it certainly would not have stalled like it did from 1929-1933. After all, the US economy grew well in the teens and twenties before it's wealth became too concentrated. Following the Great Depression and WWII, it continued to grow and the US Middle Class continued to expand even after Germany surpassed us in manufacturing. Throughout this period of several decades, the rich were taxed at very high rates. This prevented them from concentrating too much income and wealth like they had in the late 20's.

      One sticking point on this issue, like that of many others may be a simple disagreement over exactly what a depression is and what defines a recovery. The long term illness cured or the lost weight and strength fully regained. In my opinion, it's the illness cured and the first sign of returning weight and strength. The rest comes later providing there is no more illness. By the way, I do believe the US economy was suffering from a mild cold (the energy crisis) in the late 70s but nothing it couldn't have recovered from on it's own. Then Reagan came along and cut taxes on the rich drastically. The bank deregulation you refer to, aside from the acceleration of a domino effect once the first domino falls is another vehicle of wealth transfer from poor to rich.

      My fundamental point is that liberal economic policies like those initiated by FDR, prevent too much wealth from becoming concentrated faster than it is created. When you have some of the most fertile land in the world, one of the most comfortable climates in the world and the largest supply of fresh water in the world, prosperity and economic growth are a given. Screw up the formula with a heavy concentration of income or wealth especially once the masses come to depend on an 'economy' over the resources in their own back yard and it's very much like catching the flu or having the fuel siphoned from your gas tank. This is exactly the effect had by most (not all) conservative economic policies and of course, any vehicle whatsoever that transfers too much wealth from poor to rich.

      By the way, thank you for the NY Times link. I'll save that one for future reference.

      Delete