PDA

View Full Version : The great fiscal stimulus package ... of 1929


Richard Tafoya
Jan 28th, 2008, 11:41 AM
Marketwatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/great-fiscal-stimulus-package-/story.aspx?guid=%7BD3B850E5%2DE05D%2D40DA%2DA630%2D42B3CB838 AE9%7D&dist=MostReadHome

Lately, whenever the market has a bad day, the reflex among financial-news editors is to compare our current situation with 1987 and wonder if a "Black Monday"-style crash is on the horizon.

But some observers draw a darker metaphor, noting that much of what we are seeing now also took place in 1929. As we know, that meltdown -- unlike the 1987 crash -- was not followed by a happy ending, but rather by a decade of poverty, shantytowns and sporadic famine.

Popular imagination has the Great Depression opening with a bang in October 1929. We forget that even by December of that year, the market had no idea what was really in store. After a period of wild, bipolar volatility, stocks had taken two big tumbles (a 12.8% drop on Oct. 28 and an 11.7% fall the next day) while the top bankers and "captains of industry" rushed to shore up the market. By November, the Dow had hit its low for the year at 198, down from the giddy September high of 381.

But, the financial pundits and government leaders of the day insisted, the economy's fundamentals were still strong. Mass unemployment was, some months after the crash, still just something that went on in Germany and Britain. America was strong and merely needed a push to keep the financial markets from harming the broader economy.

With that in mind, Herbert Hoover -- only nine months into his presidency -- assembled leaders from the public and private sectors to create an economic-stimulus package. Among the measures, Time magazine reported at the time, was a promise from Congress to offer bipartisan support for a tax-cut package. The proposal called for $160 million in tax relief -- only about $22 billion if adjusted against the gross domestic product at the time, and therefore much smaller than the plan under consideration here in 2008. Read Time's original coverage of the plan. (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,738193,00.html)

Also on the table was an assurance from the Federal Reserve that it would provide cheaper credit. Granted, the Fed had much less power over the money supply in those days, mainly because the amount of liquidity it could create was limited by the supply of gold it held to back the dollar.

...


None of this worked. What was first seen as speed bump to the expansion of American finance became something much larger. The Dow continued falling, hitting 157 in 1930, 73 in 1931 and finally a mere 41 points in 1932. It did not reach its 1929 high again until 1954, a generation later.

tiger_rascal
Jan 28th, 2008, 11:45 AM
Whats the point? :confused:

This new "tax rebate plan" will fail?

Richard Tafoya
Jan 28th, 2008, 12:55 PM
If people do what is actually smart, which is to tuck the money away for a rainy day, it'll fail.

If they see it as an excuse to go on a spending spree and spend not only it but put a lot more stuff on credit, then it'll at least kick the recession can down the road to the next president who will have to deal with the aftermath of the loan defaults attached to this new credit. And if all that spending ratchets up prices, the Fed will probably have to take some steps to avoid spiraling inflation.

So in a nutshell, it's hard to say, but it's always instructive to look at what happened in the past when we did pretty much what we're doing today and to be prepared in case history repeats itself.

ConnieB
Jan 29th, 2008, 10:23 PM
If I'm correct, a recession is at least two consecutive months of economic decline with high unemployment rates. Up until November, we were doing ok since the 3rd quarter showed growth.

I believe we were worse off in 2001 then we are now. Unemployment in 2001 was 11% (last month, it was 5%) and the prime lending rate was at 21% (right now it's at 8.5%). We are not any where close to that and back in 2001 the recession lasted 8 months. We also had a mild recession back in 1990-91...so it seems as if every ten years or so we go through this.

db44
Jan 29th, 2008, 10:33 PM
It's actually six months I've heard. Technically we aren't in a recession, no. But we've started down the path and indicators seem to suggest we aren't turning away all that soon.

Richard Tafoya
Jan 30th, 2008, 01:24 AM
Actually, per Wikipedia, the definition of a recession is a decline in a country's gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters. A recession may involve simultaneous declines in coincident measures of overall economic activity such as employment, investment, and corporate profits. Recessions may be associated with falling prices (deflation), or, alternatively, sharply rising prices (inflation) in a process known as stagflation.

Paulie
Jan 30th, 2008, 03:30 AM
If I'm correct, a recession is at least two consecutive months of economic decline with high unemployment rates. Up until November, we were doing ok since the 3rd quarter showed growth.

I believe we were worse off in 2001 then we are now. Unemployment in 2001 was 11% (last month, it was 5%) and the prime lending rate was at 21% (right now it's at 8.5%). We are not any where close to that and back in 2001 the recession lasted 8 months. We also had a mild recession back in 1990-91...so it seems as if every ten years or so we go through this.

Connie,

I don't know where you got your figures, but they are way off.

Unemployment never got above 6% in 2001, and the prime lending rate hasn't been anywhere near 21% since the late 70s/early 80s.

Paulie

DoubleEdgeSword
Jan 30th, 2008, 04:55 AM
Richard is correct. This type of stimulus in the form of tax rebates has been tried before and has not been successful. Research has shown that people (in general) do not spend windfall cash on consumer goods. There is an economic theory called "permanent income hypothesis," which says that people will only increase spending when they believe their income is permanent, just as they will borrow to maintain their consumption when their income is permanently lowered, i.e., through the loss of a job.

DoubleEdgeSword
Jan 30th, 2008, 06:48 AM
By the way...

January 30 2008: 8:37 AM EST

The economy grew at only a 0.6% annual growth rate in the fourth quarter.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The economy grew at a much slower pace in the last three months of the year, according to a government report Wednesday that came in well below Wall Street expectations.

The report raised fears of a recession and hopes for another significant interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve.

The gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation's economic activity, grew at an annual rate of 0.6%, adjusted for inflation, in the fourth quarter, according to the Commerce Department, down from 4.9% in the final reading of growth in the third quarter. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast GDP would slow to a 1.2%.

The report comes amid rising concern that the U.S. economy is falling into a recession, with some economists arguing the downturn started in the final month of 2007.



http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/30/news/economy/gdp/index.htm?postversion=2008013008

DoubleEdgeSword
Jan 30th, 2008, 03:28 PM
The Fed cuts rates again, the federal funds rate by half a percentage point. This is the second rate cut in just the past week.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/30/news/economy/fed_rate_decision/index.htm?cnn=yes

Richard Tafoya
Jan 30th, 2008, 03:49 PM
It's safe to say that without these two large rate cuts, the stock market would have crashed hard this week.

As we enter an earnings season that is expected to present a lot of bad news, it'll be interesting to see how much more the Fed needs to do to shore things up.

pinky
Jan 30th, 2008, 03:54 PM
ANY time the Fed drops the rate twice in one week, things are not good.

SparkleHugs
Jan 30th, 2008, 05:06 PM
What do these rate cuts mean??

<--Got a C in economics. but admittedly, didnt really try.

Richard Tafoya
Jan 30th, 2008, 08:27 PM
I posted a quick primer on the effects of the rate cuts here: http://talk.livedaily.com/showthread.php?t=612201