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?

Continued from page 1

The result was the disaster I've described above. The economy, which had been growing strongly, stalled. GDP, which was $89 billion in 1938, grew to just $89.1 billion in 1939.

And the damage wasn't worse only because Roosevelt forced a change in course so quickly. By April 1938, he had pushed new large-scale spending programs, totaling $3.75 billion, through Congress. Legislators later added $1.5 billion to the pot. The Fed, under Chairman Marriner Eccles, reversed course again and started to expand the money supply.

The annual deficit soared to $3.2 billion in 1939. That represented 45% of the government's revenue that year.

Couldn't possibly happen again, though, could it? In 1936, Roosevelt and his team didn't even have an economic theory to justify deficit spending in an economic emergency. John Maynard Keynes' "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" wasn't published until that year. We've now got a Fed chairman who has written and lectured extensively on the mistakes made by his predecessors. And unemployment is still rising. We certainly wouldn't try to cut the deficit or balance the budget while the ship is still taking on water, right? Right?

I wish I were more certain.

Not your average recession

A July CBS News/New York Times poll found that 58% of those Americans surveyed said the government should focus on reducing the budget deficit rather than on spending to stimulate the economy. Granted, that number is probably inaccurate to the high side because of the way the question was phrased (How about this instead: Do you think the government should focus on reducing the budget deficit or making sure that you have a job tomorrow?) -- but it is still remarkably consistent with earlier polling. In May, the same poll found that a majority of Americans thought that the Obama administration should shift from fighting the Great Recession to reducing the government deficit.

Listen to all the voices -- not just here but even more stridently in Europe -- calling for a need to restore fiscal discipline. Listen to congressional speeches calling for the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to exit the "free market" before it's too late to save even the bones of U.S.-style capitalism and before the Obama administration sells us into, gasp, socialism.

(I just wish someone, sometime making this charge would be specific about what kind of socialism he or she is talking about. Are we afraid that this administration wants this country to be Sweden or that it has a hankering for Stalin-era gulags and collective farms, where we all start the day singing to the glory of our tractors? There's a big difference. Maybe the speakers could wear hats or talk in funny accents to make their definitions clear.)

Video: When will the economy feel stronger?

The economists and policy wonks and wonkettes at the New America Foundation symposium I wrote about on Friday actually believe there's a chance we could do it again. Not by Congress cutting off the funding for the first stimulus package still flowing through the pipes, but by the House and Senate refusing to even consider a second stimulus if the economy looks like it needs one in 2011.

The year of the Big Test will be 2011. By that year, the money from the first stimulus will have been spent, and the economy will either be in the midst of a sustainable recovery or not.

I think anybody who tells you they can predict now whether we'll have a sustainable recovery under way in 2011 is either out to fool you or is fooling himself.

This isn't your average recession. This is a great big global recession coupled with a great big global financial crisis.

This Great Recession is therefore much more subject to fits and starts and reversals than the average recession, because every time the economy starts to run smoothly, the banking system stands ready to throw another wrench into the works.

I'm not predicting the return of 1937 in 2011. I don't think I've got the kind of super-X-ray economic vision to call that one right either. But I would like us not to get carried away by the 57% rally in the stock market (as of the close Sept. 18) and become convinced that everything is fixed.

I'd like to keep all the available tools on the table until, well, until we see unemployment halved to 5% or so (or whatever passes for normal these days), until we see truly functioning financial markets, until we see mortgage foreclosures going down, until we see credit card defaults back to pre-crisis levels and until we see some significant inflation in the economy.

Until then, I'm hopeful, but I'll be damned if I'm going to get overconfident.

I'd like the 1937 recession to stay buried in the history books where it belongs.

Jim Jubak has been writing Jubak's Journal and tracking the performance of his market-beating Jubak's Picks portfolio since 1997 on MSN Money. He is the author of a new book, "The Jubak Picks," and writer of the Jubak Picks blog. He's also the senior markets editor at MoneyShow.com.

< previous |  1 | 2 |

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