Dow+150.25up+1.52%
10,058.64
Nasdaq+24.82up+1.17%
2,150.87
S&P+13.78up+1.30%
1,070.52

MSN Money Video

Video on MSN Money
This video player requires the installation of the free Adobe Flash Player
More video on MSN Money
Jim Jubak

Jubak's Journal9/22/2009 12:01 AM ET

Will US repeat mistakes of 1937?

Seven decades ago, efforts to balance the federal budget thrust a recovering economy into a giant tailspin. Are policymakers headed in the wrong direction again?

By Jim Jubak

The specter of 1937 hangs over the economy and the stock market.

That's the year when overconfidence that the Roosevelt administration had whipped the Great Depression and that it was time to balance the federal budget led to another deep recession that wiped out three years of growth and sent the economy reeling back to the Depression depths of 1934.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average ($INDU), which had climbed 127% from a low of 85.51 in July 1934 to a high of 194.40 in March 1937, fell 49% to 98.95 by the end of March 1938 -- not far above its '34 low. (Remember, it takes only a 50% loss to wipe out a 100% gain.)

After that collapse and another one in 1942, stocks didn't match that 1937 peak until 1945.

I wrote on my blog a few days ago that "most of the time," after big rallies like the one going on now, the stock market has remained higher a year later.

Almost always. The one big exception, the one that delivered a loss big enough to wipe out portfolios, came in 1937.

A self-inflicted swoon

It's that "almost" that gives me pause as I look not so much at the stock market but at the economy and at what passes for our national discussion of economic policy these days.

The comforting thing about looking back at that economic and investment disaster of 1937 is that we did it to ourselves. Bad policy decisions, not accident or fate, led us over the cliff. So all we have to do to avoid a repeat of the results is to avoid the policy mistakes, right?

Disturbingly, there are plenty of signs that we might well be prepared to do it to ourselves all over again. Let's look at what happened in 1937 and why we could repeat that year's mistakes on our way out of the Great Recession.

1937 was the year, students of the Great Depression know, that everyone from the president on down got so confident that the bad times were over that they tipped the country back from recovery to depression.

Video: When will the economy feel stronger?

Unemployment, which had marched down from its Depression high of 25% to a low of 14.3% in 1937, climbed again, hitting 19% in 1938. Personal income dropped 15% from its 1937 peak. And manufacturing output fell 40% from its 1937 peak, all the way back to the levels of 1934.

In other words, 1937 was the year that the V-shaped recovery from the depths of the Depression turned into a W-shaped one. The economic growth of 1934 (17%), 1935 (11%), 1936 (14%) and 1937 (10%) that had succeeded the economic collapse of 1930-33 came to a grinding halt. In 1938, the U.S. economy actually returned to negative growth, shrinking 6.2%.

What happened? Buoyed by the economic numbers and a landslide in the 1936 election -- Franklin D. Roosevelt had defeated Republican Alf Landon of Kansas by an Electoral College vote of 523 to 8 -- the Roosevelt administration declared victory over the Great Depression.

The declaration was a bit premature. Yes, unemployment was down from the horrifying 25% levels of the worst of the Depression, but it was still horrendous at more than 14%. The economy had begun to grow again, but 1937's gross domestic product of $88 billion was still lower than it had been in 1930 ($97 billion).

The emergency seemed to be over, however, and many in the New Deal, including Roosevelt's Treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, were deeply uncomfortable with the idea of running what looked very much like a permanent budget deficit. The annual deficit had peaked at $5.9 billion (yes, I know how quaint these numbers are in the days of trillion-dollar deficits), but it was still a shockingly high $5.5 billion in 1936.

You have to do a bit of number crunching to realize exactly how high a $5.5 billion annual deficit seemed then. It represented 7.7% of GDP and a huge 110% of the federal government's total annual revenue.

Erasing the deficit -- and the recovery

In 1937, the Roosevelt administration and the Federal Reserve moved to reverse many of the extraordinary measures they'd taken to fight the Depression. In 1937, the federal deficit was cut to $2.5 billion from the previous year's $5.5 billion as Roosevelt and Congress slashed spending by 18%. In 1938, spending dropped still further, 10% down from the level of 1937.

And the annual deficit just about vanished. The government ran an almost-balanced budget that year with a deficit of a mere $100 million.

The Federal Reserve moved in the same direction. After pursuing policies that had resulted in an average 11% annual increase in the money supply in the previous four years, the Fed reversed course at the beginning of 1937 and began to contract the money supply, raising reserve requirements twice, the second time in the spring.

Continued: Could it happen again?

 1 | 2 | next >

Rate this Article

Click on one of the stars below to rate this article from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). LowRate it 1Rate it 2Rate it 3Rate it 4Rate it 5High

Stock Picks

MoneyShow.com
Fund data provided by Morningstar, Inc. © 2009. All rights reserved.
StockScouter data provided by Gradient Analytics, Inc.
Quotes supplied by Interactive Data.
MSN Money's editorial goal is to provide a forum for personal finance and investment ideas. Our articles, columns, message board posts and other features should not be construed as investment advice, nor does their appearance imply an endorsement by Microsoft of any specific security or trading strategy. An investor's best course of action must be based on individual circumstances.
Join the discussion!
Sort by:
1 - 10 of 259
Monday, September 21, 2009 9:35:18 PM
Great Article!  
   The famous saying comes to mind after reading this,  "It's important to remember the lessons learned from our history, otherwise history is bound to repeat its self."
Monday, September 21, 2009 9:44:05 PM
"until we see some significant inflation in the economy."  Best be careful what you wish for Mr. Jubak.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 1:21:29 AM

Cash is king during any recession for a lot of reasons; not least being that it provides a welcome cushion for any temporary loss of income. If you've lost your job, or might, this is no time to go on a shopping spree. But if you feel secure at work and have a little spare cash, you can indeed be treated like royalty in these difficult times.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009 5:11:57 AM

Yes, the reserve requirements were raised in 1937 and 1938.  As you know reserve requirements ensure that Banks have cash in their vault.  When you raise reserve requirements a little, you significantly reduce the banking systems ability to make loans.  That is why no one over the last 12 to 18 months has really talked about reserve requirements.  They talk of capital requirements.  Bank of America was hammered, as many other banks, because they had to raise Tier 1 capital.  Since the acquisition of Merrill had so many unknown future credit losses in September 2008, BofA had to raise a bunch of capital in march of 2009.  They essentially diluted the shares of the company

 

Mr. Juback, why have you forgotten to talk about all the fiscal policies that Roosevelt imposed on America.  The minimum wage was not imposed  until Fall of 1939.  All the other absurd tax and regulation policies instituted in 1933, 1934, on so on, continued to distort the market.  No one was certain what new regulation would come down the pike.  Mr. Juback if you can not see nor admit how the Obama administration has distorted the free market by (1) buying GM and Chrysler, (2) how the stimulus program has reversed welfare reform and  told people not to even look for work, (3) how the cap and trade bill would distort the production, distribution and cost of energy, (4) how the health care bill 3200 would distort the delivery of 1/6 of the US economy, then you are disingenuous.  While the rest of the world (China and India) are trying to deregulate their economies and lower taxes and adopt greater free market reforms, the Obama administration is trying to impose more regulations and higher taxes on our economy.  The issue is that other countries around the world are becoming increasingly better investment locations than the US because they are adopting less regulation and taxes.  Socialism?  Sure.  No need to be snide to people that feel like the government is trying to run their lives.  My definition of Socialism is the government's intentional intervention in an individuals ability to make free choices.  Cap and Trade and Health care reform and alot of the stimulas bill certainly distort my ability to make a free choice.

 

PS.  the net neutrality rules proposed by the FCC is a form of Socialism.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009 5:44:55 AM
I think you are a head of yourself.  This "recovery" isn't following 4 years of double digit growth.  It looks more like the bounce in 1930.  Either way the cut off of spending wasn't the cause.  It is just proof that government spending can't stop the inevitable it can only delay it.  Would you have our government keep spending until the debt service chokes off all of our future opportunities?  Why do people think there is always a way to avoid the pain.  Sometimes you have to pay for the bad behavior of the past.  The bailouts rewarded bad behavior and made the wrong people pay for the sins of others.  Rewarding bad behavior is anti-capitalism.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 5:51:23 AM

C'mon Jim. No discussion of the Wagner Act and its effects on business, along with FDR's increasingly strident anti-business rhetoric, renders this article useless.

 

The Wager Act lead to the virtual unionization of the entire manufacturing sector in 1937. There were legal strikes, illegal strikes, sitdown strikes, secondary boycotts, etc., all encouraged by FDR. Perhaps this had something to do with the decline in GDP?

Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:33:10 AM
Wow. A lot of smart people here.  You all should sell peanuts at the next Super Bowl.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:56:42 AM

Can the end of America as we know it be that far away, when a fairly conservative economic columnist gets savaged by neo-cons for simply raising the question of recovery having parallels to a chapter from the Great Depression? Just read the twisted spin on this article ddn123 writes. Talk about someone who woke up on the wrong side of the bed, huh?

 

Look folks, Jubak is not announcing a new form of political philosophy or economic school of thought, he is simply reviewing a little economic history and asking a few questions. So simply because he polks a little fun at the Chicken Littles who answer everything OUR president advocates with accusations of a hidden socialist/coounist agenda, Jubak is now a apostate for the Anti-Christ? Get Real already. Chill Out. Have a Beer. Be thankful you had the good fortune to be born an American in the late 20th century.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009 7:01:03 AM

ddn123 you have made some very interesting points that I would love to hear Mr. Jubak reply to in a future article.  Any country that has a government run healthcare program could techinically be considered socialist.  From what I understand it is not the fact that some of the bills had it in them it was the fact that panels would be formed who had the power to make small businesses take up the government option.

 

Freedom of choice mean that if I have a small business and I offer someone a job but I choose not to provide them with healthcare then this person can either choose to work for me in exchange for wages and pay for their own healthcare or find another job.

 

On the point of running a budget deficit and what that may do to our economy I would rather have higher unemployment for a couple of years than see our currency collapse because everyone(foreign governments) realizes how broke our country is and dumps the massive amounts of US treasuries they hold.  Yes it is great to have a $7.25 minimum wage but if our government keeps spending this way that $7.25 will end up having its buying power massively eroded.  $15 gallon of gas anyone?  How about $5 for a bottle of water?  Just keep spending.

#10
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 7:10:03 AM
No matter whether you are right or wrong, there will always be those who think they know more than you do Mr. Jubak.  Not sure any of the above matters.  In probably 50 years or less,  this will be an Islamic country.  Won't Allah be proud!
1 - 10 of 259
To add a comment, pleasesign in