The Long Boom: No Great Depression planning thread

MAlexMatt

Banned
There's an excellent dissertation/book out there under the (incredibly creative :rolleyes:) name Lessons from the Great Depression: The Economic Effects of the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 and the Beginning of the Great Depression that I managed to get my hands on a while back. It's truly impressive as an economics text and makes a pretty rock solid (well, at least as rock solid as economic texts can be) case that the Smoot-Hawley tariff is almost uniquely responsible for turning what would have been a sharp but short recession in the later half of 1929 and the early part of 1930 into the decade long depression we're all familiar with.

I was so impressed with this argument that I immediately wanted to examine a timeline using some way of avoiding the tariff as a PoD. I've been meaning to do so for a while and that intention was more or less the entire reason I made an account here. I'm doing some preliminary research on the details of the PoD (there was a time in early 1930 when the Act looked like it would die in the Senate, but several Senators gave up on opposition and switched to the pro-tariff side in exchange for rate hikes on products important to their own states...I just need to find out exactly who these Senators were and how I can keep them in the opposition).

However, i have an additional problem. I don't know that much about contemporary politics in America, and I know almost nothing at all about politics elsewhere in the world.

Let's say there is a relatively minor recession which clears up by the second half of 1930 in the US and most of the rest of the world. Systematic difficulties continue (Germany's economy, for instance, remains under the burden of war reparations, albeit with the forgiveness and allowances of things like the Young Plan), but otherwise the slightly unstable but prosperous economy of the 1920's continues across the developed world.

How do other events work out? How does the situation in Germany evolve? Britain? France?

Does Hoover stand a chance at a second term? Who would be his competition, both in the Republican primaries and his Democratic challenger in the General?

What are the odds of a Civil Rights Movement being birthed in a more economically secure 30's, two decades ahead of time? Perhaps as a reaction to the segregationist excesses of the 10's and 20's?

What else might happen? What other social and political pressures are going to be seeking an outlet?

This would be a bit of an in-depth project, so I want to make sure I do it right. I want it to be as detailed and 'true to life' as I can make it, and I would love to get some help from the knowledgeable, educated crowd here at AH.com.
 
Demand shifted from imported goods to domestic goods after Smoot-Hawley. The protectionist retaliation of various countries around the world hurt, but this was not the cause of the Great Depression.

Remember, exports were only about 4% of US GDP in 1930. The Smoot-Hawley explanation doesn't make sense.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
Demand shifted from imported goods to domestic goods after Smoot-Hawley. The protectionist retaliation of various countries around the world hurt, but this was not the cause of the Great Depression.

Remember, exports were only about 4% of US GDP in 1930. The Smoot-Hawley explanation doesn't make sense.

The thesis of the dissertation is that trade shocks can have monetary effects out of proportion to the total size of the trade sector. Essentially, the banking panics that began the Great Contraction started in states and cities which depended heavily the export sector (mid-West farm states, Detroit, etc etc) and were almost entirely caused by the collapse in international trade surrounding the trade war that Smoot-Hawley sparked off.

Regardless, this isn't what I made the topic for. I already know the basics of the PoD and just need to track some specific names down.

What I wanted to brainstorm here is the implications of a Great Depression that never was on the world of this alternate 1930's.

In a bit of preliminary research, I've come to the conclusion that the Nazis are not going to happen -- although Germany preceded the rest of the world in falling into economic recession (Germany's difficulties began in 1928), the NSDAP only became a big thing after total collapse began in the later part of 1930, and only gained real power on their own a long way into the Depression in 1932.

How do German politics evolve without the Nazis? I imagine Social Democrats continue to be the largest single party, but how do coalition politics play out? What about the Communists? Are they going to go anywhere without a major Depression, or would even a relatively smaller recession, combined with the onus of the Young Plan, be enough to make them a serious contender for power?
 
I have a list of Presidents for a No Depression timeline I'll probably never write (based off my list of Presidents thread).

1932: Herbert Hoover / Charles Curtis (R)
1936: John Nance Garner / Newton Baker (D)
1940: Robert A. Taft / Ronald Reagan (R)
1942: Ronald Reagan/vacant (R)[1]
1944: Ronald Reagan / Prescott Bush (R)
1948: Ronald Reagan / Prescott Bush (R)
1952: Dwight D. Eisenhower/Barry Goldwater (R)
1956: Dwight D. Eisenhower/Barry Goldwater (R)
1960: Barry Goldwater /John F. Kennedy (R)
1964: Barry Goldwater /John F. Kennedy (R)
1968: Edmund Muskie /Lyndon B. Johnson (Liberal Democratic Party)
1972: Pat Robertson/George Smathers (Christian Democrats)
1976: Edmund Muskie /Lyndon B. Johnson (LD)

[1] Taft poisoned.

The list goes up to 2012 but becomes very Turtledovian after this point.

And Reagan's career is reversed in this timeline, a politician who becomes president then a successful actor.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
Interesting.

Would a WWII analogue happen to drive Eisenhower into politics?

What kind of politician would Reagan be? It's my understanding he was a New Deal Democrat in his early years, but there probably won't be anything that closely resembling a New Deal ITTL (perhaps a 'labor union rights' thing in the 30's? I'm not too familiar with pre-Depression left-wing politics in the US), so what would his outlook be?
 
I have a list of Presidents for a No Depression timeline I'll probably never write (based off my list of Presidents thread).

1932: Herbert Hoover / Charles Curtis (R)
1936: John Nance Garner / Newton Baker (D)
1940: Robert A. Taft / Ronald Reagan (R)
1942: Ronald Reagan/vacant (R)[1]
1944: Ronald Reagan / Prescott Bush (R)
1948: Ronald Reagan / Prescott Bush (R)
1952: Dwight D. Eisenhower/Barry Goldwater (R)
1956: Dwight D. Eisenhower/Barry Goldwater (R)
1960: Barry Goldwater /John F. Kennedy (R)
1964: Barry Goldwater /John F. Kennedy (R)
1968: Edmund Muskie /Lyndon B. Johnson (Liberal Democratic Party)
1972: Pat Robertson/George Smathers (Christian Democrats)
1976: Edmund Muskie /Lyndon B. Johnson (LD)

[1] Taft poisoned.

The list goes up to 2012 but becomes very Turtledovian after this point.

And Reagan's career is reversed in this timeline, a politician who becomes president then a successful actor.

There is no way, NO WAY, Reagan will be VP in 1940. That is insane, and don't even get me started on Garner. The man never wanted to leave Congress and was one of the least charismatic figures in early twentieth century American politics.

Also, if there is no Depression, I just don't see the Nazis seizing power which means no WWII at best or a general war in the Pacific (the Japanese were going to attempt to seize Asia regardless). Without the war, how does Eisenhower gain the clout to run for the presidency?

To be honest I'm surprised you don't have the Kennedy patriarch, Joseph, as president somewhere in there. If not for the Blitz in Britain where he was ambassador (where he made the faux pas of breaking down and declaring the war lost for the UK and US during the bombing of London), the guy easily was a front runner in Dem circles for the presidency. In this time line, no Nazis take power. Without Hitler as Fuhrer, no Battle of Britain. No Battle of Britain, no faux pas, Joe remains popular and eventually takes the nom.

Colonialism lasts longer, probably for the better. A jewish state has a harder time being created (once again, no Nazis in power means no Holocaust so no guilt and pressure for the preservation of the Jewish people). In fact, many jews may continue to assimilate into their respective countries, which they were in the process of doing until the Holocaust served to revive Jewish culture. Atomic research lags behind OTL and the Soviets remain a credible threat without the decimation caused by Hitler's forces.

This is all just off the top of my head.
 
While only 4% or so of the economy in general, they were often important manufactured items that were simply not available at the same level of quality in America at any price. This is partly due to economies of scale, Ricardo, others (and perhaps also regression to the mean?), and suddenly that widget costs twice as much, or is in scarce supply and considered an unreliable customer. Switzerland in particular was angered by the arbritrary nature of the Smoot-Hawley, if I recall correctly. So it might be more critical than one takes at face value, as an ersatz substitute does not do the job. Machinery in particular would be a killer.

More importantly was the disease of bad loans overseas. When loans are seriously in default, it is soveriegnage in reverse (As John Law found out in France during the Mississippi Bubble, loans can be leveraged upon loans, but the house of cards are afterwards delicate). When 1933 Germany repudiates her loans made in the 1920's by the US Banks to individual Province Level governments (e.g. Bavaria) in Germany, or Peru, or whereever beforehand, the ripples go far beyond the 4% rule. Smoot-Hawley was a rancid grease on the slippery slope to doom.

President Hoover was publicly balaming Obnoxious Playboys (the rich, inherited kind, not the then unknown porn type), and raising taxes to non-wartime heights, for example.

It is amazing that only a middle level main US bank (the so called Bank of The United States) went under during the Great Depression. The inner core managed to stay afloat. I am amazed that this was the only level of effect, although regional banks in smaller states were just absolutely devastated, and in 1933 many others came real close.

Put in an other way, Smoot-Hawley was an obvious ativistic sand in the gear box stunt by Katzenjammer Kids in control. As long as they do stuff like that, who knows how much more spooked the Animal Spirits of the market would get, especially a market all but force fed steroids on 90% margin rates (give it a "coup de whiskey" said in 1928 by the soon to have a deadly heart attack Federal Reserve Chairman Benjamin Strong).

Another book you might want to read is Murray Rothbard's book "The Great Depression".
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
There is no way, NO WAY, Reagan will be VP in 1940. That is insane, and don't even get me started on Garner. The man never wanted to leave Congress and was one of the least charismatic figures in early twentieth century American politics.

Also, if there is no Depression, I just don't see the Nazis seizing power which means no WWII at best or a general war in the Pacific (the Japanese were going to attempt to seize Asia regardless). Without the war, how does Eisenhower gain the clout to run for the presidency?

To be honest I'm surprised you don't have the Kennedy patriarch, Joseph, as president somewhere in there. If not for the Blitz in Britain where he was ambassador (where he made the faux pas of breaking down and declaring the war lost for the UK and US during the bombing of London), the guy easily was a front runner in Dem circles for the presidency. In this time line, no Nazis take power. Without Hitler as Fuhrer, no Battle of Britain. No Battle of Britain, no faux pas, Joe remains popular and eventually takes the nom.

Colonialism lasts longer, probably for the better. A jewish state has a harder time being created (once again, no Nazis in power means no Holocaust so no guilt and pressure for the preservation of the Jewish people). In fact, many jews may continue to assimilate into their respective countries, which they were in the process of doing until the Holocaust served to revive Jewish culture. Atomic research lags behind OTL and the Soviets remain a credible threat without the decimation caused by Hitler's forces.

This is all just off the top of my head.

Ah, so a President Joseph Kennedy, interesting.

Around when do you think he might try his hand at a run? Sometime in the 40's?

ADD: And I wouldn't suppose you have any familiarity with pre-war politics in colonial Africa and Asia, would you?

While only 4% or so of the economy in general, they were often important manufactured items that were simply not available at the same level of quality in America at any price. This is partly due to economies of scale, Ricardo, others (and perhaps also regression to the mean?), and suddenly that widget costs twice as much, or is in scarce supply and considered an unreliable customer. Switzerland in particular was angered by the arbritrary nature of the Smoot-Hawley, if I recall correctly. So it might be more critical than one takes at face value, as an ersatz substitute does not do the job. Machinery in particular would be a killer.

More importantly was the disease of bad loans overseas. When loans are seriously in default, it is soveriegnage in reverse (As John Law found out in France during the Mississippi Bubble, loans can be leveraged upon loans, but the house of cards are afterwards delicate). When 1933 Germany repudiates her loans made in the 1920's by the US Banks to individual Province Level governments (e.g. Bavaria) in Germany, or Peru, or whereever beforehand, the ripples go far beyond the 4% rule. Smoot-Hawley was a rancid grease on the slippery slope to doom.

President Hoover was publicly balaming Obnoxious Playboys (the rich, inherited kind, not the then unknown porn type), and raising taxes to non-wartime heights, for example.

It is amazing that only a middle level main US bank (the so called Bank of The United States) went under during the Great Depression. The inner core managed to stay afloat. I am amazed that this was the only level of effect, although regional banks in smaller states were just absolutely devastated, and in 1933 many others came real close.

Put in an other way, Smoot-Hawley was an obvious ativistic sand in the gear box stunt by Katzenjammer Kids in control. As long as they do stuff like that, who knows how much more spooked the Animal Spirits of the market would get, especially a market all but force fed steroids on 90% margin rates (give it a "coup de whiskey" said in 1928 by the soon to have a deadly heart attack Federal Reserve Chairman Benjamin Strong).

Another book you might want to read is Murray Rothbard's book "The Great Depression".

I'm really trying to avoid having this turn into a discussion on the supposed causes of the Depression. That's something I've been researching for a little while and I'm already fairly solid on, I'm far more interested in the implications of No Great Depression than in the method of trying to get there.
 
If there is no Great Depression, and only a recession by the standards of, say, the late 1970s or early 1980s (too many factors to prevent it entirely) then there will be a great deal of butterflies (obviously). In terms of short-term domestic policy changes, Hoover will continue to pursue a progressive Republican approach: lower taxes for the poor, ratify a treaty on the St. Lawrence seaway, federal loans for slum clearance, federal Department of Education, and a $50 a month pension for seniors. No guarantee that all of these measures pass of course, but definitely a center-left focus.

In 1932, the Democrats will still have to nominate a compromise candidate between the Dixiecrat John N. Garner and the big-city Al Smith. A possible choice instead of FDR could be Maryland Governor Albert Richie, a progressive from Baltimore who represented a state which was very much southern in nature at that time. Richie may select Roosevelt as his running-mate, however. In the general election, the economic conditions certainly hurt Hoover, but it's unlikely he'll loose. The Democrats will likely focus their attacks on the economy and the "gross-expansion of federal power." Nonetheless, they will still be defeated by Hoover and the Republicans. Going forward, I could very easily see JPK being elected President, and if not him then his son. In foreign affairs, a US-Japan Pacific Conflict is a strong possibility. In Germany, while the Nazis likely don't take power, the Weimar Regime is doomed for failure. A military coup takes power in Germany, possibly annexing ethnic German territory, but no war with Poland. Down the line, a German-Soviet war is quite likely.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
This is exactly the type of thing I'm looking for.

I'll look up more about Richie.

I suppose what parts of Hoover's progressive platform get adopted into law is going to depend on how the Congressional elections in 1930 turn out. If the second half of 1930 evolves as a recovery instead of as a further descent into Depression, I imagine there's going to be some effect, even if a somewhat minor one, on this.

According to wiki there were 11 seat changes in the Senate and 34 in the House from the 71st Congress. I'll try to dredge through the list and figure out what seats specifically were up for grabs and if any of them might go differently in a better economic environment.

EDIT: OK, nevermind, there's a page dedicated to the different Congressional elections. Let's see what there is to see.
 
I'm really trying to avoid having this turn into a discussion on the supposed causes of the Depression. That's something I've been researching for a little while and I'm already fairly solid on, I'm far more interested in the implications of No Great Depression than in the method of trying to get there.

Ok, one hazy situation sure to be is an increased williness for Americans to indulge in spendthrift and/or laissez faire activities. The word I hear in print and other is that the incredible strain of the Great Depression acts as a driving force for economics people to avoid at all cost, e.g. Helicopter Bernanke to spread money from a helicopter if that is what is needed to inflate the economy.

With no Great Depression, we could have had a more rocky and private role economic ride, for all that holds for good or bad.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
While I'm in the middle of analyzing Congressional elections, I can't help but notice that Albert Ritchie died in 1936 of a brain hemorrhage of some kind. Just glancing over some of the causes of such hemorrhages, I don't think it's likely that a PoD less than a decade beforehand is going to butterfly the event entirely (they seem to be most related to lifestyle choices), but it might be reasonable to move it around a few months either way.

Regardless, even if Ritchie is elected President in 1932, he's still going to die sometime either at the end of his first term or during the campaign for his second term. So he's not going to be President in the late 30's. Who's likely to take his place?

One thing to point out is that, even if there is no Great Depression, the international monetary system as a whole is still going to be mildly unstable.Less so than during the 20's, when there was a lot of monetary manipulation going on in order to bring Britain back on to the gold standard at their pre-war parity. So, while no long, decade spanning depression occurs, there will still be periodic slow-downs, growth recessions, and regular recessions. It's not an exact enough science to say when these slow downs are going to occur, but once every five to ten years isn't too hazardous a guess.

These things might not entirely effect elections, considering they didn't have this effect during the 1920's when they were somewhat more severe and more frequent, but they're worth keeping in mind.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
According to wiki there were 11 seat changes in the Senate and 34 in the House from the 71st Congress. I'll try to dredge through the list and figure out what seats specifically were up for grabs and if any of them might go differently in a better economic environment.

EDIT: OK, nevermind, there's a page dedicated to the different Congressional elections. Let's see what there is to see.

Man, this is already turning into quite the project. I'm about 10-20% of the way through the House list located here and I'm trying to work out rules for how to alter these elections. Most of them don't have enough information to decide on a case by case basis, so a more general set of rules is necessary.

I'm specifically marking down elections where the two candidates had vote totals within 5% of each other. I'm thinking of giving long time incumbents (re-elected more than five times) the benefit of the doubt no matter what. I'll reverse switches from Republicans to Democrats in states that were very hard hit by the collapse of the export market caused by the OTL trade war (so major foodstuffs exporters, car exporters, etc).

What other possible rules might I follow? And how do I tell whether a given Republican is going to be part of the 'Progressive' wing and, as such, going to support Hoover's progressive legislation?

And has anybody got any further ideas on the evolution of the international situation? The weakness of the Wiemar Republic does sound like a given, but how likely is a coup of some kind, really?
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
OK, after finishing the tally I had a lot of trouble figuring out how to decide what seats are kept Republican and what seats are kept Democratic, and what seats switch between the two. After a bit of further research, it appears the economic situation didn't have that much of an effect on the 1930 elections in the first place, so the biggest changes are probably going to happen in the Senate when constituencies respond to the failure to pass the Smoot-Hawley Act.

The areas agitating the most for a protectionist bill were agricultural states which suffered during the general agricultural depression. Unfortunately, I'm still having trouble finding exactly which Senators voted for or against the bill, so I can't decide which ones are going to be in trouble come election season.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
OK, I've come to the conclusion that Republicans who lost their seats to Democrats in major mid-West agricultural exporter states will instead hold them in the Senate. Other agricultural states in the South just aren't going to elect Republicans, so I'll leave those unchanged.

So, South Dakota's William H. McMaster keeps his seat, Colorado Democrat Edward P. Costigan still picks up a seat because the incumbent had retired and the challenger was so far behind IOTL, William B. Pine in Oklahoma keeps his seat, James H. Lewis still wins in Illinois only because Ruth McCormick isn't going to win under any circumstances, so ultimately the Senate Republicans still take a drubbing but not quite as bad as IOTL, losing 6 seats instead of eight. There's now a Republican majority of 3 instead of 1.

Using a similar proportionality in the House, the Republicans keep control of the chamber by 24 seats by the time the new session opens.

Now I only need to figure out what proportion of these Republicans are going to be progressives that would support Hoover's programs. Anyone have any idea here?
 
I can see Hoover winning re-election, but by a much smaller margin, making him the next man to pull a Wilson. Who does he beat? Does FDR still run in 1932 without a Depression? Who else could Hoover face? Maybe Al Smith instead could win narrowly in 1932 with FDR staying out of the race.

One possibility...
31. Herbert Hoover (R-CA)/Charles Curtis (R-KS) 1929-1937
32. Franklin D Roosevelt (D-NY)/Alben Barkley (D-KY) 1937-1945

I can see Republicans retaining much of the dominance they had before the stock market crash, and maybe even drifting to the left and having an Earl Warren or Prescott Bush Presidency. Maybe the retain dominance in the seventies after returning to the White House in 1969. However, by 1980, it looks like Republicans are done for good and a much more Conservative Democrat (maybe even Reagan), ushers in the new era of Democratic dominance.

In the end, the Republicans are dominated by social liberals and economic moderates while the Democrats have social Conservatives and economic moderates. Foreign policy is mixed as both sides have their internationalist wings, but Democrats are much more hawkish.
 
Top