Economic Myths and Irrelevancy

· Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Steve H. Hanke is a Professor of Applied Economics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., and writes frequently for Globe Asia and Forbes magazine. Professor Hanke starts off his "Hu versus Sarkozy" article (Globe Asia, November 2009) with a warning. There is no more reliable rule than the 95 percent rule: 95 percent of what you read about economics and finance is either wrong or irrelevant. The article contrasts the Chinese versus the French responses to the financial crisis but the major focus is on economic myths.

Hanke says that the most repeated statement about the cause of the U.S. Great Depression is that it was caused by the October 1929 stock market crash. How could that be? By April 1930, the stock market had recovered to its pre-crash level. What is not taught in history books is the Great Depression was caused by a massive government failure. The most important part of that failure were the actions by the Federal Reserve Bank that led to the contraction of the money supply by 25 percent. Then, in the name of saving jobs, Congress enacted the Smoot-Hawley Act in June 1930, which increased U.S. tariffs by more than 50 percent. Other nations retaliated and world trade collapsed. U.S. unemployment rose from 8 percent in 1930 to 25 percent in 1933. In 1932, the Herbert Hoover administration and a Democratic Congress imposed the largest tax increase in U.S. history, raising the top tax rate on income from 25 percent to 63 percent. The Roosevelt administration followed these destructive policies with New Deal legislation that massively regulated the economy and extended the Great Depression to after World War II.

Have today's politicians and their economic advisers learned anything from yesteryear's policy that turned what would have been a short, sharp downturn in the economy into a 16-year affair? The answer is very little. Professor Hanke argues that the chief enabler of both the Great Depression and our latest economic downturn is the Federal Reserve Bank, who sees itself as America's systemic risk regulator. This is the world upside down, Hanke explains: The Federal Reserve is the systemic risk.

How about a bit of history? Between 1787 and 1930, our nation has seen both mild and severe economic downturns, sometimes called Panics, that have ranged from one to seven years. During that interval, there was no thought that Congress or the president should intervene in the economy to enact stimulus packages, jobs programs or massive corporate handouts. Probably, the reason that no one thought to do so was that there was no constitutional authority to do so. It took the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations to massively and unconstitutionally intervene in the economy and, with the help of a frightened, derelict U.S. Supreme Court, turn what might have been a two- or three-year sharp downturn into our longest depression.

Professor Hanke says that the lesson to be drawn from business cycle history is that, if left to run their natural course, severe downturns are followed by rapid snapbacks. The 1921 recession is a good example where wholesale prices, industrial production and manufacturing employment fell by 30 percent or more and reached their low in mid-1921. There was little government intervention, at least by today's standards, and the economy recovered naturally; and by early 1922, it had fully recovered and the nation was off to the Roaring Twenties.

The bottom line is that the idea that government bureaucrats have enough knowledge to manage an economy well is the height of conceit -- what Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek called the "fatal conceit."

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

Anton D Rehling

I am not an economist, I am not a Senator or Congressman, I am just a small business owner that has studied some history and has a grasp of what our founding documents mean to our Republic. I would like to say I am baffled that our leaders don't see the cause and effect of governmental actions of the late 1920's and early 1930's but I don't think anyone in a leadership position can really be that stupid. I can only believe that our leaders have become drunk with power and have abandoned the principles that created our liberty and rights. It is becoming clearer daily by unconstitutional governmental actions that the subjugation of the population is their goal. What other explanation can there be? They are no longer in office to serve as intended. Those leaders we gave our trust to are working very hard to bankrupt us as was done in the above mentioned past. It seems the plan is to create a population that is dependant upon a benevolent ruling elite, one that will protect us from ourselves, regulate all we do and provide all our needs. Who will be the first to really say enough is enough?

Posted November 4, 2009 at 5:57:56 PM


Howard Last

Most of the powers of Congress are given in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. One power specifically mentioned, clause 5, is to regulate currency. I cannot find any section of the Constitution that says the Congress can give that power to an unelected board that meets in secret. The members of Congress are sworn to uphold the Constitution, maybe they can tell us where this authority is given. Andrew Jackson should call his office.

Posted November 4, 2009 at 7:58:58 PM


Steve

It isn't a mystery when you realize that the mind-set of today's leadership, not unlike that of the 1930's Congress, is to centralize our nation's economy. This hyper expansion of a 'dependency class' has only one single long-term benefit; the seats of power will remain in their hands - the Federal Government. What is puzzling is that the current leadership who supposedly hates greed are drunk with that which they despise.

If a group of people, our Congress, feels that our US Constitution is now inferior, we have to assume that they feel intellectually superior to our Founding Fathers. So far, I have not seen one ounce of evidence of this in my lifetime. A couple of possible exceptions; JFK and Ronald Reagan. The level of arrogance that dominate our legislatures is immeasurable.

Posted November 13, 2009 at 3:55:28 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund