Parallels Between The 1990s And The 1920s

Posted on Sunday, October 09 at 20:25 by Patm
But Hoover's dim eyes were far from unique. In "The Glass Menagerie" (1945), Tennessee Williams rightly referred to the years of the Great Depression as a time when the American middle class, whose "eyes had failed them, or they had failed their eyes" in the 1920s, had "their fingers pressed forcibly down on the fiery Braille alphabet of a dissolving economy." We live today in very different circumstances from those of the 1920s. The world economy is much more interconnected. Government has many more tools to counteract economic downturns. Yet some major aspects of the twenties appear very familiar to Americans of the 1990s. Could it be that we have been failing our eyes in the Roaring Nineties -- refusing to see where we are going -- much as our forebears did seven decades ago? The decade of depression whose arrival was announced in a firm voice in lower Manhattan on "Black Tuesday," October 29, 1929, was the most important such period of the twentieth century. It was the only prolonged span in the last hundred years during which some of the most significant trends of the modern world -- toward extreme individualism, materialism, immediate gratification, and self-identification based on consumption -- were reversed. Progress, marketplace economics and democracy itself were thrown into doubt. With the failure of the individualistic market economy, community-oriented values made a strong comeback. One of the most common misconceptions about the Great Depression is that it was caused by the stock market crash. Although few people had noticed it, business was already in a downward slide before October 1929. The problem was that, contrary to Hoover's reassuring words, the economy was fundamentally unsound. Prosperity had been based on the sale of new consumer goods, particularly automobiles and radios. Mass production had necessitated mass consumption, and advertising had been used to wean people from the traditional values of saving and deferring pleasure. In essence, people had been told, "You don't need to save for a rainy day, because we are in the New Era, and the economic sun will shine forever." The trouble was that mass buying required that purchasing be widely diffused among the masses, but the prosperity of the twenties was very unevenly distributed. The economic pie was growing, but the slices for the middle and lower classes -- those who would have to do most of the consuming -- were shrinking relative to that of the rich. Under these conditions consumption could not keep up with production. The inevitable collapse was postponed by selling products on credit to consumers who did not have the money to buy them. But by the summer of 1929 too many people's credit had been exhausted. The economy was sinking before the stock market crash. Two similarities in the situations of the twenties and nineties are billowing consumer debt and soaring stock prices. Surely the most troubling parallel, though, is the concentration of income at the top. Many Americans had little about which to roar in the twenties. The same has been true in the giddy nineties. Between 1920 and 1929, disposable income for all Americans rose by 9 percent, but the richest 1 percent saw their incomes increase by 75 percent. In recent years the changes have been even more skewed towards the top. Between 1977 and 1999, the middle fifth of households had a modest increase in income of 8 percent and the lowest fifth lost 9 percent, while the top 1 percent gained 115 percent. Whatever one may think of it in terms of justice, such widening inequality is not healthy for an economy based on mass consumption. Growing inequality, and its potential effects on the economy, is the major issue on which the coming election should focus, but is there a candidate willing to initiate such a discussion? It is unlikely that anything similar to the Great Depression will occur again. But we fail our eyes as much as our ancestors in the twenties did theirs if we think we have entered a genuine New Era of Eternal Prosperity. One clear, generic lesson that history teaches us is this: "It won't last." Robert S. McElvaine Published: Aug 08 2000 http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3431

Note: http://www.tompaine.com...

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Wed Oct 12, 2005 3:56 pm
    Because wealth can not be created, only taken, the New Depression has arrived in many parts of the world long ago. It is now called Neoclassical Market Economics, starving to death 25 million every year around the globe, with a child dying of starvation and preventable illnesses every 5 seconds.

    The funniest thing is that the same economics 1-01 textbooks that sell this crime wave to students, economics are defined as: "The science for the management and distribution of scarce resources".

    I don't know of a single economic theory in history that came anywhere near this definition. Like all religions, they all were captured by special interest power elites and distorted into wealth creating schemes into their own pockets.

    Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC,

  2. Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:09 pm
    They said the same thing about the 1980's. Look at the work written by Professor Ravi Batra and the similarities between the 1920's and the 1980's is very convincing, however I do take exception to the statement that something like "The Great Depression" is unlikley to happen again. The #1 rule in finance is: If it has happened in the past, it COULD happen in the future. Mr. A

  3. Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:33 pm
    Of course, even the most well meaning economists couldn't predict what the time of day will be tomorrow afternoon at 2:15.

    Ravi Batra wrote a book "The Great Depression of 1990" in 1985, which I have. Very nice and well thought out, except neither he, or anybody could predict and now everybody desperately trying to cover up, that with bank deregulation, the banks in certain countries have been licenced to create unlimited amounts of capital, papering over the facts to expropriate and steal the resources of others, which diverted the "great depression" for a few more years by increasing debts to astronomical figures in the so called industrialized coutries, while impoverishing and devastating others. The oil producing countries are the best examples.

    But then, this is market economics people are "earning" their PhDs for.

    Reminds me of the time when we were being taken for military training to nazi Germany in 1944 and were examined by SS doctors for our Aryanism, or whatever they called it, by looking at the hairs at the top of our hands to see whether we had traces of Jewish blood. That too was a "science", like today's market economics.

    Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

  4. Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:28 pm
    Ed, the thing that bothers me the most is the governments keep propping up their economies by flooding markets with buyers when certain resistance and/or support levels are reached which just delays the inevitable worldwide collapse and will cause the collapse to be a thousand times more painful. If they would not intervene by artificial means, then we could have it over with and get on with rebuilding the financial system. Also, the delay causes people like Dr. Batra look like a bunch of 'boys crying wolf' and eventually they are not taken seriously. Mr. A

  5. Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:41 am
    I agree and this is what I call "papering over" by issuing more and more credit, which in today's system doesn't even appear as paper money, only some figures in computers. The limits on our credit cards are being increased every few months, although we never asked for any.

    The GDP is the god of economic salvation for these frauds. What economists have yet to figure out is that buying on credit doesn't raise, but reduces the GPD, because a debt is not an asset, but a liability. If governments had to work on simple business accounting standards, this whole fraudulent economic system would collapse in a week.

    Ed Deak,

  6. Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:00 am
    Well, the only way they can keep things running is to issue more and more credit so people can keep spending, and the governments keep spending by printing more money, backed by nothing, which devalues their currency AND causes inflation. Mr. A

  7. Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:46 am
    We're in a major inflation now, but most of it is going into overcapitalized investments to expropriate people's properties and lives and into the money markets where up to $2. trillion change hands every day with the single purpose of world control.

    Of course, there's also major inflation in the real estate and housing markets and at the consumer levels. We're going to town tomorrow on our mid month shopping trip and I bet any amount that prices of many goods have increased in the past 2 weeks. Since the introduction of the neoclassical theory 30 years ago, prices went up at least 1000% and since the FTA and NAFTA basic living costs have doubled and tripled, yet wages remained stagnant and nobody dares to talk about it as it would hurt the great market economy theory.

    Of course, inflation also increases "growth" the GDP and "productivity", so economists and politicians are happy that everything is going well. Yes, downhill, out of control, but they don't have the models and the brains to calculate economic suicide. Ed Deak.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news