Is the 1929 Drepression unavoidable?

Well, laises faire was certainly a commonly-held economic theory for some, such as the US Industry Barons and the pro-business Republicans, but there were plenty, such as the Progressives, that were very pro regulation, IIRC. I'm not sure how much that applied to economic theory, however. IIRC they were more concerned with labor and consumer rights, but I'm no economist, hense why I ask these questions. :p
 
Well, laises faire was certainly a commonly-held economic theory for some, such as the US Industry Barons and the pro-business Republicans, but there were plenty, such as the Progressives, that were very pro regulation, IIRC. I'm not sure how much that applied to economic theory, however. IIRC they were more concerned with labor and consumer rights, but I'm no economist, hense why I ask these questions. :p

"Very pro-regulation" prior to the Great Depression would be further to the right than Ron Paul by modern standards.
 
You have two causes for the Great Depression. First, there is the issue of supply/demand that follows a Long Wave cycle based on the time it takes for two generations to change control. Next, the twenties and thirties were unique for the developed world because the American frontier was no longer available as a "relief point" for those who went bust and wanted to start over, either from Europe or the already-settled US. The populations were "stuck" where they were, dependent on an industrial economy. The dust bowl exodus was a "reverse migration" as rural people moved west to settled areas.

Finally, there is the role of the Fed (or any national government). By the time the next major recession hit in the 1980's, the economy had enough controls to moderate the impact.

So, yes, the Great Depression was for the most part, inevitable. Only its severity can be changes.
 
The general theory of the times was that more applications of the hands-off approach would solve the general question that led to the Depression. That question was going to knock on the door regardless of WWI, it just sped it up by as much as twice as fast as it might have happened otherwise.

While this is true, I think you ignore the breakdown in global finance and trade that emerged as a result of the Great War; before the war, while runs on banks did occur, there was much more cooperation between the main banks of Europe to prevent a credit collapse like you saw in the 1930s. Likewise, protectionism got a huge jolt from the war.
 
I cant stand this cult:rolleyes:
Dam historic narrativism. Weimars constitution was superior to the basic law.

I know. And I'm still seeking for the ultimate Weimarwank, the Glen and Faeelin works aren't enough. I didn't say it's impossible, but people can't be serious if they propagate this kind of ASB intervention. And the Nazis and other rightists still could have done a coup d'état at the right moment and say that the constitution were to be suspended. So Basic Law doesn't completely eliminate all threads to democracy.

But well, the '29 depression was the first time that massive amounts of financial illiterates were literally teased to buy stocks in expectance of skyrocketing growth of value. And all the new gadgets on the market, radios, flat irons on AC/DC, coffee machines. I mean, which normally challenged brain is even to guess that such a great leap forward comes to such an abrupt end?
 
While this is true, I think you ignore the breakdown in global finance and trade that emerged as a result of the Great War; before the war, while runs on banks did occur, there was much more cooperation between the main banks of Europe to prevent a credit collapse like you saw in the 1930s. Likewise, protectionism got a huge jolt from the war.

I think that the increasing interconnectedness of the pre-1914 era, if given long enough to run, would have required interconnection of a higher vision than the Age of Nationalism could produce. It took the savagery of both WWI and WWII to make people see the wisdom of the degree of economic connectedness that prevented such things. In the absence of the World Wars, that kind of thinking won't have the splendid examples of its necessity they provided, and so solutions may be more ill-resulting than good-resulting.
 

Susano

Banned
I know. And I'm still seeking for the ultimate Weimarwank, the Glen and Faeelin works aren't enough. I didn't say it's impossible, but people can't be serious if they propagate this kind of ASB intervention. And the Nazis and other rightists still could have done a coup d'état at the right moment and say that the constitution were to be suspended. So Basic Law doesn't completely eliminate all threads to democracy.
"Wehrhafte Demokratie" is, basically, undemocratic shit.
What I really hate is this attitude that it should be obvious- how much more enlightened it is. Bah, I really dont like the Federal Republic.

As for Weimarwank, my idea for that is that the Soviets win the Battle of Warsaw 1920, no Wonder of the Vistula. Of course, might be the French annex the Rhineland in reaction, so that has to be avoided. Of course, in the chaotic immidate post-WW1 era, there are lots of possibilities, and with the right combination of French and British domestic politics British pressure on France could be enough...
 
Well, laises faire was certainly a commonly-held economic theory for some, such as the US Industry Barons and the pro-business Republicans, but there were plenty, such as the Progressives, that were very pro regulation, IIRC. I'm not sure how much that applied to economic theory, however. IIRC they were more concerned with labor and consumer rights, but I'm no economist, hense why I ask these questions. :p

You people really have a distorted sense of how things were back then. The inter-war years were dominated by command economics coming out of academia, the 'industry barons' you're talking about regularly and constantly interacted with government on every level (Henry Ford had the ear of Hoover, and Fordist policies were one of the reasons that unemployment shot so high).

Laissez Faire and free trade had its day...in the 1840's. The Great Depression had little to do with laissez faire and everything to do with economic 'engineering' in the part of the government. They felt they could tweak here and tweak there but eventually it blew up in their faces.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Jaded - help me out with your definition of "Fordism"

what's your definition of it? The wikipedia definitions speak to specialization and assembly lines, but not specific government policies.
 
what's your definition of it? The wikipedia definitions speak to specialization and assembly lines, but not specific government policies.

Fordism is basically a flawed, early version of Keynesianism. Ford paid his workers high wages so they could buy the cars they made, and thought that was why his business was so successful. He suggested the same thing to Hoover after 1929, so Hoover got together a bunch of the biggest industrialists of the day and told them not to cut worker's wages in response to the crisis. While a good thing to do from the worker's perspective, what it ended up doing as consumption declined was forcing the businesses to fire workers instead as they were 'priced out' of a job.

Fordism is basically just any policy that is aimed at protecting jobs as they are now. The Smoot-Hawley tariff was done for the same reasons and had similar disasterous consequences.
 
Top